2024-02-07

Table of Contents

METAPSYCHIATRY

Mottos: `Every ideology is (potentially) deadly – it demands and justifies different victims.´ (Andrea M. Meneghin)
“Man is an ideological animal.” (Louis Althusser)
An idea should serve people but not dominate them.

Abstract

In this part ‘METAPSYCHIATRY‘ I also use the classification presented in the part ‘Metapsychology’ and start from the hypothesis that mental disorders are mainly caused by absolutizations that can produce ‘inversions’ of fundamental meanings (dimensions of our existence). That is, if absolute, relative or 0-meanings (or similar fundamental meanings) are confused, I speak of `Inversions´.
The inversions of such fundamental meanings are ubiquitous. Typical examples are ideologies.
I understand ideologies as socially absolutized ideas. These, as well as similar absolutized attitudes in families or in the individual, occur with claim to absoluteness that absolutizes something Relative and at the same time negates and excludes others. This leads to fundamental reversals of meanings:  What was a Relative, now becomes a ‘strange Pseudo-Absolute’ (sA) and the negated becomes a `strange Nothing´ (s0).¹
Strange Absolute and Nothing form pairs of opposites, ‘all-or-nothing-complexes’, which I have generally called “the It” and in the person “strange Self” (sS), because these terms describe very well what is meant:
`it’= a general, unspecified cause of an occurrence (e.g. It makes me angry/ sad/ sick …),
`strange Self´= a strange personal center. ²
These 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, whereas the person will be attributed too relative a status.
This “something“ will attain too much independence, whereas the person will become too dependent.
This “something“ will become the subject, whereas the person becomes its object.
This “something“ will become personified, whereas 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 this part ‘Metapsychiatry’.

Introduction

WHAT MEANS METAPSYCHIATRY

Based on the multiple meanings of the prefix ‘meta’ (above, between, behind, beyond), I define metapsychiatry as a level above psychiatry, from which the latter can be surveyed and reflected upon. At the same time, metapsychiatry encompasses and permeates all subjects associated with psychiatry. Thus, metapsychiatry also includes sociological, psychological, neurological, biological, and linguistic views, since these also address important psychiatric issues.

It is a topic that is often overlooked in the current literature.
“Modern psychiatry professionals and the academies or institutions in the field have an enormous and preoccupant lack of consciousness about its own fundamental philosophical principles (political, moral, metaphysical…), that is, a lack of acknowledgement of metapsychiatry.” María Jiménez Azaustre, 2019.

In addition, the term “metapsychiatry” has varying definitions:
– The term “metapsychiatry” is used in American English with a different connotation. There it is often used as “a term there for spiritual teaching and form of psychotherapy developed by the psychiatrist Thomas Hora.“³
– I agree with Rosenberg’s definition: “By metapsychiatry we mean the theoretical discipline that integrates the contributions of philosophy of science and philosophy of mind in their application to clinical psychiatry, as those conceptual and methodological aspects that should guide clinical research in psychiatry.”⁴

– My short definition: `Metapsychiatry is the study of all psychiatrically relevant topics.´
Or: `Metapsychiatry is the study of the psychiatrical Relevant.’
Just as briefly, one could define Metapsychology as the study of psychically relevant topics related to individuals or as the teaching of the personal psychical Relevant.

While metapsychology focuses on things that are important to our souls, metapsychiatry focuses on which of these things can make us mentally ill and how, or which of the psychically relevant things are themselves pathogenic or “sick”. In general: Metapsychiatry is about everything that has to do with mental illness.
Since the causes of mental disorders can be in the person or in the environment, a metapsychiatric view of the subject is indispensable. We can be influenced by positive or negative, healthy or pathological factors in our environment, in our fellow human beings, and even in nature, which is often not taken into account. That is why the usual psychoanalysis and psychotherapy can become one-sided.
I think about this area from (general) linguistic, existential-philosophical and religious-scientific perspectives. Their common theme is what I call “the strange psychical Relevant” or “strange, second-rate realities”, including mental illness.

I hypothesize that `Inversions´ of basic or fundamental meanings (absolute, relative, nothing and their synonyms) are the main causes of the emergence of these strange realities and thus mental disorders.

I repeat: `Fundamental meanings‘ (dimensions) means that we are dealing with primordial meanings, with the most fundamental, very first meanings of existence, behind which one cannot go back, which are no longer questionable, but at most credible, and which grasp every psychically relevant thing in its respective most fundamental meaning. The Absolute has the meaning of the very first, primary causes, to which all other causes can ultimately be traced back. Therefore, I try to reflect possible causes of mental illness from this last reason. (More in fundamental meanings.)

Such reversals of fundamental meanings arise primarily through attitudes that claim to be absolute and exclude other attitudes. Isms” or ideologies are not the only but typical examples of this. ⁵
In this section of ‘metapsychiatry’, I will discuss the following topics:
1. The `inversion´: The confusion of basic meanings by absolutization.
2. In a second step, I describe how this creates a strange, dominant entity that I call “the It.”
Then, I will explain how this `It´ develops its own dynamic, transforming reality and people.
3. Further, I will show how these `Its´ unite to form bigger complexes and which role they have with regard to the pathogenesis of mental disorders (e.g., “It makes me sick!”).

The most commonly used terms and abbreviations here

A = The Absolute (if not otherwise indicated, it is the first-rate Absolute/ A¹)
R = The Relative
W = World resp. reality; P = Person; I = I (WPI)
sA = strange Absolute
sS = strange Self (the personal sA) ⁶
∀ = strange All in an all-or-nothing relations.
0 = Nothingness
the 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.

Notes:
1. The It is always in three parts but may appear predominantly in two parts or one part. Therefore, I do not always speak of the whole It but sometimes only of its parts (then often sA instead of the It if its character is in the foreground), although the unnamed parts are always present.
2. These abbreviations are also made clear in this Graphic or you can find All abbreviations at the end of this publication.

Content Overview

“Hypotheses are nets, only he who casts will catch” (Novalis)

Hypothesis: Inversions generate strange, second-rank realities, which, in turn, are the most important basis for the emergence of mental disorders. These inversions have their origins, above all, in ideologies or individual absolutized attitudes. Inversion means confusion of fundamental meanings, especially of the Absolute (A) and Relative (R). A Relative thereby becomes a strange Absolute (sA) and the Absolute becomes strange nothingness (s0).
These sA and s0 create together a new, dominant entity that I call ‘the It’.
These Its produce strange (second-rate) realities – which form the basis of mental disorders. ⁷

Inversions and their effects can occur in an individual as well as in a social setting. Although it is obvious that both spheres are interconnected and have similar characteristics and dynamics, this study will primarily examine the personal sphere, since our focus in this publication is on mental disorders.
Mental disorders occur whenever a complex in a person (a combination of personal Its) has reached certain characteristics and a certain extent. Of course, complexes found in society or in an individual’s environment can also cause mental illness – but to do so, they must first be internalized and personalized.
Following the logic of this argumentation, the primary causes of p.r. changes/disorders and thus also of mental disorders must ultimately (!) be sought in an Absolute. All other causes are necessarily secondary – causes that are the result of other causes. Therefore, the pathogenesis of mental disorders usually (!) begins with a person’s attitude toward an Absolute and eventually leads to disorders, some of which are mental disorders. This is a very interesting and complicated process, which will be briefly discussed in the following section.

The usual inversion has two parts, which are inextricably linked:
1) The absolutization of a Relative (R)
2) The negation of an actual Absolute (A¹).

To 1) Note: For the sake of simplicity, the `Relative´ stands in this publication for everything, which is not an Absolute.

Because of inversion, something Relative becomes absolute and can establish a strange Absolute (sA). Instead of the primacy of the Absolute and the subordination of the Relative (R), the inversion gives the Relative the upper hand over the Absolute. As sA, the newly absolutized Relative has very different characteristics from what was originally purely Relative: on the one hand, it is intrinsically relative, but on the other hand, since it is absolutized, it has some absolute characteristics. This creates a strange new entity or person within reality that is autonomous and dominant.
In the next step, this new sA constitutes a system of domination. As a new Absolute, it has the power to subjugate other Relatives. It cuts them off from the influence of the actual A. Thus, as a new strange Absolute (sA), it forms a system with subordinate Relatives. Concerning the person: The new sA subordinates and changes the person in the area where it dominates.
We will see later that this dominance of the sA over the person is not only negative, but also positive. This fact plays an important role in understanding mental disorders.

To 2) The establishment of this sA-system is accompanied by a negation of these three actual Absolutes: 1. the +A, 2. the ‒A, 3. the personal `absolute attitude’. (More on that later.)
Thus, the corresponding actual world/reality/personality is lost.
But the process is not complete. Since each new sA also becomes an opposite to an actual A (or to another sA), the Absolutes enter into a struggle for supremacy in the respective spheres of reality or person. This means that we are often exposed to very different contradictions and tensions based on different Absolutes. Sometimes one sA fights another sA, sometimes he makes pacts with other sA – but each sA will come into opposition and contradiction with the actual Absolutes. ⁸
At the same time, each sA or It is divided within itself into opposite parts. As long as the inversions persist, they will persist. For this reason, the world/person is unable to find peace and is prone to developing mental disorders.

We return to the hypothesis that a great number of different inner and outer worlds/realities exist:
an actual world and many, strange, second-rate worlds, ⁹ and we find that all these worlds have absolute and relative (AR-) dimensions and consist of the 4 main aspects (BLQC) resp. of 23 individual aspects regarding the `Differentiations´.
These different worlds are determined by their respective Absolutes, which form the center and basis for the relative realms that depend on them. How we live, whether we are healthy or sick, depends on such external and internal worlds/realities. But since an A always rules these worlds/realities, one could say that our lives depend primarily on these A. For an individual, the Absolutes in his inner world have a direct, definitive influence, while the outer world (environment) has a more indirect influence on the person. In this regard, the question of how a person can protect his inner world from a pathogenic environment is important. Fortunately, in the long run, the first-rate world is stronger than the strange worlds/realities.
As I have said: While the first-rate world is ruled by A, the strange worlds are ruled by strange Absolutes (sA). We will see below that the restoration (`religio’) of the dominant position of true A is an essential goal of therapy.

Understanding the causes and nature of mental disorders can be difficult for the following reasons:

The person is embedded in relationships and contexts, and that’s why illness can have causes outside the individual.
Causes of illness can have effects on other people and not just the causer.
Inversions can cause many things, not just mental illness.
The causes of mental disorders are often hidden, indirect, and very complex.
The person is often unaware of the true causes of mental illness.
Each inversion diversifies or spreads in such a way that it can cause many different disorders, and on the other hand, one disorder can be caused by many different inversions.
The negative can have not only negative effects, and the positive can have negative effects. That’s why the positive can also be the cause of mental disorders.
Often the subjective experience and the objective facts are not identical: that is, disorders can be experienced as positive and health as negative. But even from an objective point of view, illness is not absolutely negative and health is not absolutely positive.
Disorders or their causes may also be considered positive by society and therefore encouraged (e.g., workaholism).

Now I will explain exactly in the following paragraphs:
1. The `inversion´.
2. I describe how the inversion creates the strange, dominant entity that I call `the It´ and how this `It´ changes reality and people.
3. I show how these `Its’ unite to form larger complexes and their role in the pathogenesis of mental disorders..

INVERSION – Confusion of the Dimensions of our Existence

“There are things of the first order and things of the lowest order. … By exceeding the permissible space, things feel abused … the things of the first order that have been pushed into the last place are dying of exhaustion. Conversely, however, … it happens that things that have been pushed into the first place do not thrive but dry up and shatter.” José Ortega y Gasset.¹⁰ Similar H.R. Niebuhr,¹¹ P. Tillich and W. Daim.

Definition

By `inversion’ I mean the confusion of existential, fundamental dimensions of our existence. (See Dimensions).
To denote the dimensions I use the terms ‘absolute’, ‘relative’ and ‘nothing’ as guiding terms.
These indicate rank (hierarchy) and fundamental meaning of the different forms of existence.

I repeat: This publication deals only with fundamental meanings (and not with meanings per se), because I see in their confusion essential causes for personal and social disorders. “Fundamental, existential” dimensions and meanings means that we are dealing with primordial meanings, with fundamental, very first, most important meanings that cannot be further questioned, but are at most credible, and that capture everything personally and socially relevant in its most fundamental meaning.

Inversions lead to the formation of strange entities (`Its’), which in turn produce strange “false” realities/ worlds (W²), such as psychical illnesses.

Similar definitions:
– Inversions: Confusions of fundamental meanings, -rankings, -orders, -hierarchies, -coordinate.
– Inversions: Ideologizations that dominate people and connected with a negation of actual
Absolutes.
– To put it religiously: Inversions arise by replacing God and the Self with something strange.
Inversions thus always lead to a loss of God and the Self.
For ‘inversions’ one could also use: mistake or mix-up.

To some terms
Reversals = Results of inversions.
                Examples: Subject-object-reversal, person-thing-reversal, etc.
                See all reversals in Summary table column U.
    Special reversals:
                Reversal into the opposite
                Reaction formation = Reversal into the opposite as a defense. ¹²

Causes of Inversion

Prototype: Ideologies

I define ideology as an absolutized idea or as
“A set of beliefs, convictions, or ideas that binds a particular group of people and determines their actions.” [According to Oxfordreference.com.]
Although I do not consider ideologies to be the sole cause of mental disorders, they are nevertheless prominent in this paper.
Why did I choose the term ideology as a prototype?

Unlike other causes of mental disorders, ideologies already have names that are fairly accurate in describing what is meant.
Based on the definition above, all ideologies are more or less one-sided because they are tied to specific groups.
Although ideologies are not the negative in themselves, they appear with a claim to absoluteness of an absolutized idea, which excludes, negates or fights those who think differently. This leads to fundamental psychological (but also social) disorders, which are all the more serious the more aggressive the respective ideology is (fascism and the like).
But even such a good ideology as humanism can cause disorders if it is understood in an absolutized and dogmatized way. More on this elsewhere → Critique of Humanism.

“Primordial inversion”: Adam and Eve

The story of creation in the Bible is an example of inversion and the emergence of the aforementioned strange realities, the “world”. The snake claims: “You will be like God.”¹³ This idea tempts us to doubt God and make something else absolute. To me, this is the basic structure of all inversions which may still serve as a model today. This basic pattern can generally be found in the most diverse ideologies, specifically in temptations by populist leaders, drug use, prostitution, and, quite unremarkable, in many everyday situations. ¹⁴ And we listen to the seducers because we have a deep longing for something Absolute: love, eternity, eternal happiness, eternal life, and so on. – But God seems far away and elusive. Those who seduce us offer free bait so that we enthrone what appears to be the Absolute, but which will eventually come to dominate us.
Thus, in the very beginning, before the reversal occurs, there is almost always a seductive idea of a strange positive Absolute – or a threat of a strange negative Absolute. Can we not all relate to this story? Are we not all like Adam and Eve? Do we not all eat the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge every day, constructing ideologies that seem reasonable or beneficial for a short time, but prove harmful in the long run? (See also Theodicy).
Even after psychoanalysis, situations of temptation and failure are very relevant.

Differences

Great and Everyday Inversions

It is not only about universal topics of humanity, but also about everyday topics – worries such as illness, problems with our partners or children, success and failure, money or no money – all these topics can enter the absolute sphere and thus gain existential relevance. The range of possible inversions is almost unlimited. I will systematize them in a later section.
Inversions can be changed quickly, or they can last a lifetime, like a mindset that can be found in societies or families for several generations.
The common denominator of all these patterns of behavior (or, rather, their underlying attitudes) is the subordination of the individual to an alien Absolute and the negation of that which is the actual Absolute.

Inversion and Behavior

Existential attitudes, opinions, and beliefs are generally “located” in the absolute sphere of the person. Concrete behaviors depend on them and are therefore relative to them. Therefore, it is not possible to draw completely safe conclusions about primary attitudes from concrete behaviors.

Inversion and Sin

Regarding the distinction between inversion and sin, I would like to say briefly that inversion is more pervasive than sin, and the individual is often unaware of its presence. Sin is commonly understood as an act of conscious free will, a violation of the Ten Commandments.
It is possible to have inversions without sin.
Objectively, both sin and inversion are of relative importance; subjectively, however, they are often of absolute importance. Inversion is by no means only negative or even evil, but rather something subordinate (second to penultimate) that often serves as an emergency solution despite all the disadvantages.

Inversion and Repression (Freud)

Freud’s concept of repression corresponds in part to the concept of inversion, provided that “repression” means the repression of the Absolute (or its synonyms) by a Relative (or its synonyms). According to the psychoanalytic conception, the repressed Absolute would then recede into the unconscious.
A more detailed discussion of the differences between Freud’s theory of repression and my analysis can be found in the unabridged German version.

Inversion and ‘Contra-Inversion’

The absolutization of something/someone is always automatically accompanied by an absolutization of the polar opposite and a negation. This means that with every strange Absolute, the corresponding opposite and antagonistic opposites appear – often only latently present. I call the complexes thus formed ‘It’, which will be discussed later.(→ It). Any inversion may so lead to the genesis of its polar opposites, dilemmas, paradoxes. (See e.g., Ambivalent and paradoxical reactions.)
The emergence of opposites also goes hand in hand with the emergence of fusions (mergers) and negation. Likewise, fusions generate opposites and negations as well as negations promoting opposites and fusions. (→ E.g., Interplay of opposing ideologies and philosophies) In my opinion, the literature on this subject (KW `dialectics’) deals only with the dynamics of opposites and not with the simultaneous emergence of fusions and negations.

Individual and Societal Inversions

Individual and collective inversions are closely related and interdependent.
a) Individual inversions: Ideologizations and inversions begin in the absolute spiritual sphere of a person, but their effects can be found everywhere: in the spiritual and psychic spheres, in the material and somatic spheres, but also in societies. These effects can be secondary causes for further changes. However, the primacy of spiritual causation cannot be better demonstrated than the primacy of material or other causation.
b) Societal inversions: The inversions affect not only individuals, but also groups or whole societies.
Here they can be found mainly as different ideologies or “isms”, as well as in countless attitudes and beliefs that exist in small groups such as families, in societies, in different generations, in the mainstream as well as in some world views.
The following chapters will describe the character of ideologies, their “it”s, and their effects. These ideologies not only have negative and positive sides, but in the long run they always prove to be more or less oppressive, demanding sacrifice, excluding others, and potentially pathogenic.

Brief Illustrations of Inversions

A Relative (R) becomes an Absolute (A) and an Absolute (A) becomes a Relative (R) or 0.
Both are connected and form an It. Due to the inversion, R becomes more important than A, while A becomes less important than R or becomes 0.

Symbolic Images of Inversions

From left to right:
a) On the left, we can see how A loses its position in the center, whereas the Relative takes the former’s place in the center.
b) A Relative becomes dominant over the Absolute. In the sphere of a person: R becomes superior to P.
c) The Absolute is no longer considered fundamental, while the Relative is considered fundamental.
d) The Absolute is no longer considered to be first-rate, but second-rate, while the Relative becomes first-rate.
e) The Absolute is no longer considered comprehensive, while the Relative is considered comprehensive. Everywhere there are “shifts” of the center and “ruptures” between the first-rate starting point and the new strange situation.

Inversions and their Effects from the Perspective of Linguistic Analogies

Grammatical and syntactical analogies remind us of the hypothesis that aspects of psyche (“structures/ forms”, “movements”, “qualities) reflect what is in language represented as nouns, verbs and adjectives, while psychical connections are expressed linguistically by the syntax, i.e., by that which subjects and predicates represent.

Now, One can examine the changes of the “structures/ forms), “movements”, “qualities” and interconnections are caused by the inversions.

Corresponding to a syntactic analysis one can say: In a first step, a person (P¹), who is a subject per se, makes a (relative) object to a subject by absolutizing it; but this makes P itself an object. After that, however, P² as object can only appear as a secondary subject.
Another analogy is that the subject forces the object into a certain form by using a verb as a predicate. “The verb dominates the object.”¹⁵
You can read all inversion results in the `Summary table´.
For a more detailed analysis, please see the unabridged German version.

How are Inversions Expressed? – Linguistic Analysis

Often inversions are not immediately recognizable in everyday life, especially since they can appear in different forms and expressions. Inversions arise from certain attitudes and are expressed in a variety of ways: in certain patterns of behavior, in ways of thinking and speaking, etc. Most clearly, inversions are expressed in the language used in communication. Since inversions always affect the absolute sphere, they can be seen in the inappropriate use of the following absolute words or statements, such as:

• Absolute nouns (= being): God, devil, idol, saints and the sacred, or nominalized absolute adjectives.
• Absolute verbs of action (= actions, behavior) like: to adore, idolize, hate, swear, curse, dogmatize, ideologize, etc.
• Absolute auxiliary verbs e.g., (absolute) must, will (want to do), must not. ¹⁰⁸
• Absolute adjectives: e.g.: absolute, by itself, actual, categorical, primary, independent, total, surreal, irrelevant.
• Superlatives.
• Absolute adverbs (= circumstances)like: always, for ever, never, impossible, unbelievable, definitely not, in no way, obvious, entirely clear, first-rank, certainly, etc.
• Absolute prefixes and suffixes like: un-, -less, etc.
• Universal-statements = sentences containing absolute words, proverbs or universal statements.

Systematization: Inversions (partly facultative)

I limit myself here to known ideologies in view of the multiplicity of possible inversions. In addition to ideologies, there are countless other “private”, nameless, dogmatic attitudes. [Notes: ↔ means inversion.]
I will discuss them one by one:
Inversions of Dimensions, Inversions of Differentiations, and Inversions of Units.

Inversions of the 7 Aspects of Dimensions

• a1) (Key aspect) Absolute and Relative are confused/mistaken (↔)
Relative (R) becomes strange Absolute (sA) and the actual Absolute (+A, ‒A and absolute attitude´) becomes nothing (0). Source: all ideologies, some worldviews.
• a2) The Self ↔ the other.
A strange other is seen as an actual Self, as actual identity, as identical to itself –
and the actual Self is seen as strange or irrelevant,
e.g., Determinism, operationalism, some philosophies of identity.
• a3) The actual ↔ the possible.
The possible, artificial, fake, surreal will be denoted as actual, real, etc. –
and the first-rate realities/ truths will be seen as irrelevant,
e.g., Realism, objectivism, positivism, antirealism, idealism, relativism, formalism.
(KW `The rule of the beautiful image´).
• a4) Uniform ↔ partial.
Parts are treated as a whole – and the whole as a part,
e.g., Monism, holism, universalism, integralism, totalitarianism, expansionism.
• a5) Unconditional ↔ conditional.
Conditional becomes unconditional and vice versa,
e.g., Dogmatism, determinism, fatalism, partly skepticism.
If one makes a main thing to incidental and a minor matter to the main thing. Further: radicalism, extremism.
• a6) First-rate ↔ second-rate.
Second-rate becomes first-rate and vice versa,
e.g., If one makes a main thing to a minor matter and a minor matter to the main thing.
Further: radicalism, extremism.
(KW `The rule of the second over the first´ or the `rule of the form over the content´).
•a7) Independent ↔ dependent.
Dependent things become autonomous – and the independent things are seen as dependent or irrelevant, e.g., Autopoiesis, evolutionism, philosophy of immanence.

Inversion of the Main Differentiations

• I. Being (spirit ↔ matter),
e.g., idealism, immaterialism, ontologism, spiritualism / materialism, naturalism, formalism, structuralism. KW `The rule of matter over the spirit´.
• II. Live ↔ function,
e.g., Hylozoism, dynamism, energetics, functionalism, partly philosophies of life, vitalism.
KW `The rule of functions and officials over the life´.
• III. Absolute ↔ relative qualities,
e.g., Perfectionism, positivism, idealism / negativism.
• IV. Subject ↔ object-/ connections.
Relative connections are treated as absolute connections and vice versa.
Objects are treated as subjects and vice versa,
e.g., subjectivism, objectivism, relationism, epiphenomenalism.
KW `The rule of objects over the subjects´.

Inversion of the Units

• On 1. Everything ↔ something.
Something is seen as everything – and everything is seen as nothing.
• On 2. Transcendence (God, heaven, spirit) ↔ immanence (world, matter, partly humanity).
• On 3. people ↔ things.
Things are seen as people and vice versa. (KW `Rule of things over people´).
• On 4. I^A ↔ I^R and I ↔ others.
Others/people or the own I are absolutized – and the own or strange Absolute is being negated.
‘Ego’ as common term for an absolutized I. (KW `The rule of Ego over the I´).
• On 5. spirit ↔ soul, body of a person.
The human body (or parts of the body) or functions such as appearance, physical ability, or well-being are absolutized – and the actual absolute spirit, such as the unconditional dignity of the person is relativized or negated.
Additional aspects such as ownership, morality, ability, etc: see unabridged German version.

Overview of the most important Inversions with their Results

Importance of Inversions for the Development of Mental Illnesses (Interim result)

I am convinced that inversions, together with the -A, are the most common and primary (!) cause of mental disorders. On the other hand, the connection between inversions and mental disorders is never definite, because

Every inversion also has positive effects! Therefore, an inversion is definitely not bad or evil, but rather an emergency solution.
The +A can also have negative results/consequences, comparable to the pain we have to endure at the dentist.
The decisive factor in the pathogenesis of mental disorders is not any kind of error or confusion per se, but that they are related to the Absolute. Confusions of the relative are everywhere. Everything “earthly,” our daily life, our communication, our way of thinking and perceiving, is more or less alienated, paradoxical, senseless, traumatizing, etc., without us automatically becoming ill. Only when something becomes absolutely relevant does it dominate us, and if it is not compensated by something else, mental disorders can occur..

IT – the NEW STRANGE ENTITY

Note: Readers who are not interested in this topic can skip this chapter and continue with the
‘The personal It and the strange Self´.

Introduction

In this chapter I will discuss in more detail the consequences of inversions.
From inversions of psychically relevant dimensions, a new entity can arise that dominates us and Inversions form new, strange realities and personal parts.
In the following I will call this new, strange entity ‘the It’.
Thus inversions lead to the formation of something new, strange, which has materialized and become independent. A formation has emerged that represents the inversion of fundamental meanings and has inverting effects, too.
Something has emerged that has detached itself from its creator and is no longer his object but a new, strange, independent subject and develops its own effect on its own. In this subject role, it dominates us humans, who now become objects.
This ‘It’ has its own characteristics, which I will describe afterwards..

The It in general

Why Did I Choose the Term ‘It’?

The term `it‘ denotes an unspecified cause of an occurrence.¹⁶ And W. Jung: “The pronoun (it) is only a formal, empty subject. [Wahrig: ‘seeming subject’] associated with … impersonal verbs … but also with verbs of physical or mental sensations, verbs of lack or need…”.¹⁷

I distinguish between a little ‘it’ and a big ‘It’. The little ‘it’ is subjugated to the I-self.
The big ‘It’ in question here dominates the Ego.
Therefore the term ‘It‘ is used here to describe an ‘it’ with absolute importance for a person.
It is created by inversion, which causes an ‘it’/’something’ to be absolutized and to become an It, which then dominates the I.
Then I no longer possess it, but It possesses me. Therefore, this It is the cause of an event within a person that the person cannot directly control or influence. In everyday language, we also often use the term It to describe something (usually something unknown) controlling us: “It’s killing me!”, “It’s making me sick!”, “It’s confusing me!”, and so on. Unlike the term human or Ego, it also refers to the indeterminacy and subconsciousness of a person, group, or society.
All of these characteristics fit very well with the “It” described in this publication.
These Its play a special role in the development of mental disorders. (See more later).

`It’ with Similar Meaning by Other Authors

• The It described by S. Freud applies to one of the three instances besides I and super-ego. ¹⁸
• G. Groddeck describes it in a similar way. He mentioned the important role of the It within our inner life in “Book of the It”, even before Freud did. ¹⁹
• Paul Auster: Paul Auster: “What this It referred to, Quinn never knew. A generalized state of things as they were, perhaps; the state of it-ness that was the ground on which the events of the world took place.” ).”²⁰
• Georg Büchner in ‘Danton’s Death’: “What is it in us, that lies, steals and murders? We are puppets and unknown powers pull the strings; … we are not ourselves!”²¹
• Thomas Wolfe wrote about “… that something that lived and wove in the dark, while the people slept, which happened secretly, rejoicing and victorious all over the country …”.²²
• A. J. Cronin: “The stuff is in my body. It’s myself… I am the it itself.”²³
• In the book LTI, Victor Klemperer describes the language of the Third Reich. I believe that one can view the language and spirit of the Third Reich as equal to the language and spirit of the It. His description of a Nazi-march in LTI is an example of two typical characteristics of the It: hyper-identity and juxtaposition of lifelessness and ‘hyper-vitality’. ²⁴
• “The feasibility of the ‘It’ is the basic lie of the modern world of life and work. A collective self-deception…” Juli Zeh²⁵
• The features that Stefan Zweig gives the ‘daemon’ in his book ‘The Struggle with the Daemon’ essentially correspond to an ‘It’.
• It is typical, that also a horror film by Stephen King is called ‘It’.

Brief Characterization and Definition of the It

The It = a strange dominating subject. More precisely:
The It = special entity, originated by inversions, which became independent and dominates and changes WPI. ²⁶
It is a complicated formation with the most varied of effects.
It is a fundamental basis for mental disorders.
However, the It is not “the evil” or solely negative because it also contains positive sides, which are very important for its persistence and penetrance.
It is – along with many other characteristics – strange and divided.

An It consists of three parts: a pro-sA , a contra-sA, and s0-part ²⁷ (‘triad’), although it can also appear as a one-part or two- part (“monad” or “dyad”).

Why does an It always consist of three parts?
In other words, why does an inversion always create three opposites?
Example: I’m idealizing something. Each something, however, as a Relative, has apart from the positive, also a negative and a neutral part, and these two parts are also absolutized, (‒ and 0 absolutization).
At the beginning of absolutization, the It often appears one-sided / one-part (like a ‘monad’), later often ambiguous / bipartite (like a ‘dyad’), although in reality it has three parts. Rarely do you experience the It with all three parts as `triad’ because mostly one part dominates. In one part, like a monad, the It appears when one of its parts (pro, + part, contra, – part or 0 part) is absolutized and the other two are repressed or displaced. For example, if I absolutize my strength, then I must negate my weaknesses and everything else that contradicts strength. But the repressed or negated parts remain latent.
Bipartite (like a ‘dyad’) one experiences the It when two of its parts are simultaneously “activated”, e.g., everything and nothing, pro and contra, pro and nothing, contra and nothing.
In this way, the It, as well as the dominated people, has many opposites, depending on which part dominates.
(I will explain these processes in more detail later.)

The terms “dyad” and “triad” seem to describe well what is meant here. One could describe the It as a ‘dyad’ as a ‘WPI-determining binary or dual unit’ (1 and 0) and interpret the increasing digitization as an attempt to divide the world and people into as many 1’s and 0’s as possible (‘It parts’), which threatens to dominate us despite all progress and even tries to digitize psyche and spirit. The ‘triad’ also has a parallel in data processing in the form of ‘trinary’ encryption, which allows the states 0, 1 and -1.
For example, regarding aspect a4: The It is the dominant inverted and too divided (± all or nothing) and the too fused. And this is how It works: inverting, dividing, and fusing.
This is how It works in all areas of WPI: It inverts (→ inversions), divides (→ opposites), and fuses (→ mergers) realities, people, and the individual with its parts.

I repeat:
In the absolute sphere, different laws and qualities prevail than in the relative sphere.
When something Relative has entered the absolute sphere and is taken as absolute, although it is not an Absolute, then a very peculiar structure is created, a hermaphrodite, a stranger, which is inherent but not identical with the actual original relative being, which has its own characteristics and dynamics, which partly agree with those of the actual being and partly contradict them. The greater the distance between a sA and the +A, the smaller the correspondence.
The personal It (pIt) has strange characteristics, especially those of a strange absolute Self. As such, it is no longer primarily the actual spiritual and living, but primarily strange material or thing and functional. The materialization also means that it is no longer directly available and changeable, but can only be changed in the long run by new attitudes.
(For a detailed presentation of the character of the It, see the in Summary table, column H.)

That is, the more the It is removed from the influence of the +A, the less the laws of life or the living spirit exist, but a kind of mechanical laws, because now it is less about spirit and more about materialized being and its functions. At the same time, chaos arises. The Its are like parasites that have become part of the host organism (WPI), although they still remain strange and dominant; although both, the parasites and the host organism, have entered into a dependency in which both have advantages and disadvantages, it is more advantageous for the parasites (the Its) and contains dangers for the host (e.g. becoming ill). ²⁸
The It dominates certain spheres of reality, so also the person and sometimes submits under them (but ultimately to its own advantage).
The It creates and binds its own Relatives and forms with them a separate unit (like nucleus and cytoplasm of the cell).
The It tries to expand itself and to dominate other Its.
The It forms further Co- or Contra- or 0-forms, which act similar or in opposition to the primary forms.
The It forms larger complexes and second-rate units, systems, personalities – all of which together form second-rate realities/ worlds

Possible synonyms for the It in general:

Dyad, triad, parasite, symbiont, paper tiger, chimera, delusion, fool’s paradise, phantom, figment of imagination, bastard, miscarriage, new strange, self-deceit.
Symbol of the It in equilibrium: ☯..

The Emergence of the It

Introduction

I repeat: The absolutizing of a Relative or the negation of an actual Absolute can be the beginning of the emergence of It. It does not matter whether it began with the intrusion of the Relative into the absolute sphere, which caused the loss of A, or whether it began with the negation of an A, which allowed R to invade the “empty space” of the absolute sphere. The absolutized R and the negated A act as sA and s0, creating their own dimensions and differentiations, and together they create a new, strange instance: the It. As said, the It differentiates and dimensions itself according to the (+ or -) all-or-nothing principle. More specifically, the Absolute can be qualitatively positive or negative, or quantitatively all-or-nothing. The new strange Absolutes (or ‘All’) and 0 become the centers of new strange personal or impersonal realities/worlds that they dominate. The inversions are like acts of creation that enable the establishment of a variety of new strange worlds/realities. These second-rate realities have their own peculiarities and rules, which we will get to know better in the following paragraphs. They live or die according to their centers – the It. Although these processes are very complex and occur simultaneously in many spheres, for the sake of understanding I must break them down into separate steps before presenting an overall view. The different steps should be understandable if one remembers the hypotheses that every reality is AR dimensioned and BLQC differentiated.

In the following section, the emergence of all possible It-parts and their sides will be presented.
First, I will discuss the emergence of a two-part It (dyad) to then discuss the emergence of a three-part It (triad) an finally their different sides.

The Emergence of the Parts of the It

Depending on the type of inversion, the It can appear as dyadic It (all or nothing),
or as triadic It (pro-sA , contra-sA and 0 or asA, rsA and 0).

All-and-Nothing Emergence

In the following paragraph I will describe how inversions produce a dyad (`dyadic/binary It’) in the form of `All and Nothing’. These two parts of the It are created by the basic mechanism of inversion: Totalization and Negation = All or Nothing mechanism. The following illustration will make it easier to understand this process.

The diagram shows the emergence of new dimensions of It, referring to the concept of All or Nothing: From an absolutized Relative¹ or totalized All¹, a strange All² emerges – and from a negated All¹ and something Relative¹, a strange Nothing (0). The underlying inversion is illustrated by the use of gray.

This all-or-nothing is a major characteristic of every It. Both parts of the dyad are intimately connected. In fact, they are two sides of the same thing, It. Although they are welded together, they are also separate and opposite. They are friends and enemies at the same time. They depend on each other and destroy each other. However, they coincide in their common opposition to the first-class AR¹ or reality¹. There are no nuances between all or nothing.
Since the “all” (∀) is either a positive or a negative strange absolute (+sA or ‒sA), I will deal with the emergence of these two sides of the “all” there in the next section. On the other hand, since the term ‘all’ is commonly used in comparison to ‘nothing’, I will use it in this sense (`all or nothing’) as well. All/ Everything abbreviations: (∀) , All² (or only All).
On the Genesis of the nothingness see later.

Genesis of the Strange Absolute (sA)

“The Egyptians created Gods out of the things they were scared of,
and out of the things they wished for.“ Egyptian tour guide.

Synonyms for sA: Pseudoabsolute, secondary, substitutive, strange Absolutes/ dominations, part of a triad, partly as obsessions, fixations. [Similar to Freud’s concept of fixation].

Sergi Avaliani comes to a very similar conclusion about the pseudo-absolute as I did:
“Since human knowledge is relative, human beings consciously (or often unconsciously) dismiss the relative by creating the absolute. The absolute thus created is the Pseudoabsolute which, by virtue of its human origins, is relative. … The Pseudoabsolute is a dialectical unity of the absolute and relative and, as a `third reality,´ plays a great role in the spiritual life of humankind.”²⁹

Strange Absolutes (sA) are being developed when Relatives are taken as absolutely.
Everything that is relative can be absolutized. This applies to things, people, and especially childhood experiences. These experiences can be positive in the sense of temptation, negative in the sense of trauma, or the third main group, which is a negation of the child or its existential needs. Then these people were not able to build basic trust as a child. Something else happened instead: Trust in something that is really only of relative value, too much distrust of a relative negative, or no trust at all. At a certain point, it does not matter whether something is positive or negative. They are two sides of the same coin, as opposite as they may seem. There is also a French saying: “Les extrêmes se touchent”. – “The opposites touch.”
In the common Western society as an achievement-oriented society, deeds and successes (asp. 15) are probably the most absolutized. Also sexuality (asp. 6), property (asp. 9), other people as role models (asp. 3) and some other aspects play a big role in our society. The Church is probably most in danger of absolutizing morality or itself as an institution (Asp. 12 and 3). Rationalism absolutizes the mind (Asp. 16), and romanticism absolutizes the emotions (Asp. 7), etc. There are also certain nameless attitudes that are dominant and internalized in families. Internalized I will call them strange selves. Many absolutizations or “weirdness” in society or in families are seen as the right way to live and are therefore encouraged. They are a major cause of mental disorders.
I agree with M. Siirala who speaks of direct relations between the schizophrenia of the individual and the “schizophrenia” of the generality. I will also try to make connections here between the various family and social ideologies and their inversions on the one hand, and the various illnesses of the individual on the other.
Types of sA: +sA (= pro-sA ), ‒sA (= contra-sA); asA and rsA.
With nothingness, they are parts of a triad. Symbol of sA: Yin-Yang ☯.

Positive strange Absolute (+sA/pro-sA)

Too much of a good thing* is a bad thing (Saying)³⁰

Synonyms: False Gods, ideals, love-objects, ‘drugs’, glorified objects, wrong centering etc.

As strange Absolutes they represent: strange or substitute sense, strange or substitute identity, -truth, -reality, -unity, -safety, -reason, -autonomy and -freedom.
Compared to the +A, the +sA seems more fascinating, more direct, and more provable.

Emergence:
Something Relative is seen as absolutely positive/right, without being it. ³¹
Typical examples for +sA are: Money, power, health, youth, sex, achievement, performance, the relative good and right, morality, fidelity, knowledge, wisdom, control, man himself, ³² especially idealized people, one’s own person, “saints,” or other earthly things.³³

The graphic illustrates, how a part of the absolute-area is being conquered by a relative positive.
Therefore that absolutized area adapts to the characteristics of the strange positive Absolute.The affected now defines him-/herself by the absolutized ideal and thus surrendering its own primary definition and identity! Since the established ideals and their increased demands cannot be fulfilled in the long run, they begin to promote their opposites. (See I. Kant: The basic virtue is good will. If this is lacking, the other virtues can also become evil and dangerous).³⁴
See also Reversal into the opposite

The +sA becomes the most important in two different ways: it becomes the best (subjectively) and the most expensive (objectively). The +sA not only imitates the +A, but surpasses it in its positive effects. Compared to +A, +sA is more fascinating, better, more direct, more tangible, more provable, etc. in the short run. This makes it especially seductive. However, this hyper-positive effect is accompanied by greater disadvantages, especially later on. Thus morality becomes moralism, the search for truth becomes arrogance, autonomy becomes self-importance, humanism becomes one-sided altruism or hard-heartedness, reconciliation and peace must be achieved at all costs, even at the cost of self-sacrifice.

Negative strange Absolute (‒sA/contra-sA)

Synonyms: false friends, false objects of hate, false deadly sins, false demonization.

Emergence: Relatives, that are taken absolutely negative as absolutely bad/evil. Typical examples: immorality, fault, illness, weakness, inferiority, impotence, failure, sorrow, death, conflicts, problems, aggression, the evil, ³⁵ loneliness, traumas, certain people. ‒sA are also often recognizable when using “I definitely cannot…”.
For example: “I cannot be angry!”, “I definitely cannot become like my dad!”.

The graphic illustrates how a relative negative breaks into the absolute-area (or how a lack in the absolute-area is being replaced by the relative negative). With that absolutization, it gains the characteristics of an strange negative Absolute.

+ Absolutizing of a relative Negative and ‒ Absolutizing of a relative Positive

Whenever a positive Relative is absolutized positively, the effects will be much smaller than when a positive Relative is absolutized negatively or a negative Relative is absolutized positively.
See also Ambivalent, paradoxical reactions , Inverted, paradoxical world

+sA and ‒sA: Greatest Enemies and Best Friends

+sA and ‒sA depend on each other and exclude each other at the same time. They fight each other or promote each other. (“Evil never thrives better than when an ideal precedes it.” Karl Kraus). They are opposites and nevertheless the same. Like a reflection in a mirror, where the opposites are however the same. The devil is then only a co-player of the false God in the same game.
These gods have two faces:

The gods give everything, the infinite ones,
To their beloved, in entirety
All joys, the infinite ones,
All pain, the infinite ones, in entirety. (J. W. von Goethe)

The phrases “Les extrêmes se touchent” (The opposites are touching”) or: “The extremes are equal”, “Extremes are often together”, “The extraordinary is equal” and so on, express the same statement.
Every It potentially carries its own enemy and its own nothing, and is therefore doomed to failure in the long run. For example, a dictator needs an enemy image to justify his dictatorship.

Life and Death as sA

Those who stick on their lives are more likely to lose it than those who live it calmly with God.
(Free according to Mt 10:39).

Because in our time many people no longer believe in God and eternal life, earthly life and death are absolutized. Earthly life is then the most important positive A and accordingly death is the worst A. That´s why an exaggerated demand has arisen to keep everyone alive at all costs, no matter how sick and old, even if the person concerned does not want it.³⁶ But one would have to speak exactly of (second-rate) death² and life², because in my opinion it is not about real death and real life, but about absolutizing earthly forms of existence.
The two extremes are mutually dependent: the greater our greed for life, the greater our fear of death. And the greater our fear of death, the greater our greed for life.
But at a certain point, you also find the opposite. (→ Reversal into the opposite). The more we fear death, the sooner we want to die. And the more we live greedily, the less we fear death, because we suppress it. (All possibilities can also coexist.) This possibility that death and life can reinforce each other, even though they are completely opposite, is a characteristic of their secondary reality. For me, this possibility is also a sign that this is not the last question. Only complete death (the “second death” according to Rev 20:6) and eternal life are completely incompatible and mutually exclusive.

Absolutistic sA (asA) and Relativistic sA (rsA)

The following graphic illustrates the creation of asA and rsA more detailed.

This graphic illustrates the emergence of asA and rsA. The Absolute without the Relative becomes absolutistic (= hyper-absolute) asA -and many or all absolutized Relatives become relativistic (= hyper-relative) rsA. There is a contrary opposition between asA and rsA.

• asA = the absolutistic sA is a strange Absolute, that is without or totally separated from any Relative.
(In contrast to that, the actual A ‘surrounds’ the Relative). The asA are superelevated, distant conceptions of God, or idealized humans (idols, rulers), that have no connection to reality.
• rsA = relativistic sA = the totalized Relative. That refers to the point of view of relativism, that everything is only relative and that there is no absolute truth. That means, that we are not dealing with a single (or a few) strange Absolutes (as with pro- and contra-sA) but we are facing a variety of Relatives, that determine WPI.

Examples for rsA:
– Everyday life (or whatever is relevant in this situation) dominates P.
– The current media world with its excessive distractions. – The digital age, if it creates a digital world without a superior Absolute.

Hint:
Although the asA and rsA are special absolutizations, they are principally not different from the other sA, so that I subsume them there.

Strange `Absolute Attitude´

In itself, the `absolute attitude’ is absolutely free in choosing +A or ‒A. However, when relative choices are made absolute, strange `choice absolutes’ are created.
See also `The absolute attitude of the I´.

Genesis of the Nothingness

Synonyms: Zero, nothing, vacuum, emptiness, deficiency.
Shortcuts: s0, 0² or mostly 0.

I have already mentioned, that parallel to the absolutization of a Relative, there will be a negation of actual A., As a result, a defect in the Absolute -sphere, an empty space, a nothingness emerges in people or societies.

Mephisto to Faust: “You will see nothing in the eternally empty distance, you will not hear the step you take, you will find nothing solid where you rest!”

This nothingness itself is not actual, but a second-rate (²), a pseudo-nothingness, but something that will be experienced as total nothingness. It has three sides: a positive side, a negative side, and its own empty side, which will be discussed below.
By choosing nothingness, a person also chooses the opposite strange all or sA. Again Mephisto: “In your Nothingness, I hope, the All I will recover.” ³⁷
Therefore, negation creates contradicting opposites. ³⁸
Negation means: A is negated, ignored, superfluous, deselected, not considered, repressed, excluded etc. Personally, that usually means the negation/ devaluation of a person’s actual Self.

What are the Absolutes that are negated?
= the three actual A: +A , ‒A and the personal `absolute attitude´.

• Negation of +A:
What is +A? Trustworthy assurances to a person, such as those formulated by religion, human rights, or love. (Here categorized by the 7 aspects of the dimension).³⁹

1 – Each person is loved for their own sake. Religious: loved by God¹
2 – The unconditional personal identity, the Self.
3 – The uniqueness of each person.
4 – The integrity of each person.
5 – The unconditional right to exist of each person.
6 – The unconditional dignity of each person.
7 – The right to self-determination of each person.
⁴⁰

Man leaves his inner paradise and inverts himself when he rejects such absolute assurances. One could also say: Inversion also happens when a person does not believe that he or she is unique, unconditionally lovable, equal, free, etc.

• Negation of ‒A
Attention to the negation of -A¹ is also important because by negating it, another negative, which is only relative in itself, takes its place and becomes absolute for us.
This means that something that is only relatively disturbing and seems to be only a relative problem now becomes unbearable and seems to be insoluble. Now the person is afraid of something that in itself is only relatively frightening.

• Negation of the `absolute attitude´:
As said: In itself, the “absolute attitude” is absolutely free to choose +A or -A.
Ideologies, however, either negate this choice (“man has no free will”) or exaggerate it (“man is completely free”).

Examples of the Genesis of the three It-parts

• Example: + / ‒/ 0
In terms of quality, each Relative is only more or less positive, negative or neutral.
In the case of absolutization, this changes: the fluid transitions of more or less positive and negative (good and bad) become polarized and completely separated. Now certain things or people are categorized as “absolutely good,” “absolutely bad,” “black or white,” or the like, even though they are not. The person experiences certain relative things as absolutely good or bad (…), or has been taught to do so in the past. As a result, he/she now sees the world/things only in this (extreme) way. Like looking through a magnifying glass, everything seems bigger/more extreme than it really is. There is nothing (0) between these opposites. It is important to say that because of this view this person often has certain advantages at first and then mainly disadvantages.

The graphic shows how something Relative changes after an inversion. It is polarized, compressed and finally divided into +sA, ‒sA and 0. The original unit is basically torn into different, opposite parts. On the other hand, these parts are very closely connected. (Symbol on the right).

• Example: strength/ weakness

This illustration shows how an inversion creates by absolutizing of Relatives certain It-parts: a pro-sA out of strength, a contra-sA out of weakness and a nothingness (0) out of others (and out of through the absolutization negated Relatives itself). The following differentiation can be made then: A first part, that I will call pro-sA , here strength*, a contrary opposite part, which is the contra-sA, here weakness* and a contradictory opposite part, the zero-part (s0), the nothingness.*⁴¹

I want to explain the origin of the three it-parts with this example: (partly repeated). Two Relatives, here ‘strength’ and ‘weakness’ are relative opposites. We can see that the two terms (or their meaning) are not sharply separated, but overlap. The curve of ‘strength’ extends into the area of ‘weakness’ and vice versa. This means that neither term represents anything absolute. Neither is strength absolute, otherwise it would be omnipotent, nor is weakness absolute, otherwise it would be impotent. Instead, strength contains some weakness and weakness contains some strength. So strength and weakness are a polar pair. They are on opposite sides, but they are not mutually exclusive. They are part of something bigger, something whole (+A). They are part of that greater whole without being identical. Besides them, there is something else with which they are also connected. It is not called strength or weakness, but they are also part of it without losing their own identity. Strength and weakness have a relative relationship to this other, just as they have a relative relationship to themselves. How does inversion change this situation?
Strength is understood not as relative but as absolute, as omnipotent. Weakness is seen as powerlessness to be avoided (-sA as opposed to +sA). This also means that this absolutized strength (strength*) excludes weakness or the like – just as other absolutized parts exclude their opposites. Thus, the opposites are now not only relative opposites, but absolute opposites. Each part now has an opposite and a contradictory opposite. However, they are also interdependent and strongly connected. A typical example would be machos trying to eliminate weakness.

The Emergence of the Three Sides of any It-part

So far we have seen how inversion can create three parts (`triad’).
The further hypothesis now is that each of these three parts has three sides again, thus forming a `nine-sided triad’.

How can this be explained?

In the explanation of the origin of the three parts of the It, we assumed that each relative normally has two counterparts, which are also absolutized and thus form a triad in the case of absolutization.
Now I further assume that each of the three parts of the triad has three sides. In other words: On the one hand, each part has a side (the main side, so to speak) that gives the side its name, but there are also two sides: one that represents its counterpart and another that represents the others. In the case of absolutization, not only the main side but also the two opposite sides are absolutized. As a result, each part of the It, the pro-sA, the contra-sA, and the 0-part, has three sides: the main side and two opposite sides (which are mostly suppressed).

Example: strength/weakness

Using the example of absolutization of strength and weakness, this illustration shows how the three sides of each It-part are formed. Since strength usually also `contains´ some weakness, the inversion causes that side to be absolutized as well and represents a negative side of the pro-sA ‘strength’. Finally, strength contains not only some weakness, but also something else (others), which becomes the 0-side of the pro-sA. The same is true for the other two parts, contra-sA and 0. The * should emphasize again that these are absolutizations.

Examples of different sA with their 3 sides:

• The 3 sides of the + *
                1. The main side of the + *: e.g., correct decisions / successes / strength … are great.
                2. The negative side of the + *: e.g., agony of choice, pressure to succeed.
                               Or Goethe: “Nothing is more difficult to bear than a number of good days.”
                               Also: the more + * the higher the drop height.
                3. The 0-side of the + *: e.g., the + I do not care, resignation etc.

• The 3 sides of the ‒ *
                1. The main side of the ‒ *: e.g.,  poverty, war, murder, immorality, illness … are bad.
                2. The positive side of the ‒ *: e.g., morbid gain, ↓”fall height”, emergency lie, sweet
                sin, tyrant murder.
                3. The 0-side of the ‒ *: e.g.,  the ‒ I do not care, repression.

• The 3 sides of the Nothing²
                1. The main page of nothingness: e.g., strange emptiness, nothing.
                2. The positive side of nothingness: e.g.,
                                Nirvana, belle indifference, the advantage of repression. If I have nothing, I
                                cannot lose anything. ⁴²
                               It is easier to dispense completely with everything than half.
                3. The negative side of nothingness: e.g.,
                               horror vacui, one is burned out, desolate, abandoned, lost, left
                                alone, godforsaken.
                               The nothing stares at a desolate one from empty eyes (caves).
                               Death, hell – the great nothingness? J.P. Sartre: “Behind closed doors”.

The contrary main and reverse sides correspond to paradoxes (→ About the emergence of paradoxes)..

Summary: It as nine-sided Triad

Each It can have 9 Different Connotations: As +/-/0 from +*; as -/+/0 from -*; as 0/-/+ from 0*.

The graphic shows how each It can appear differently, depending on which of the 9 sides dominates.
The pro sA part of the It is drawn without a pattern, the contra part gray and the zero part dotted.
The individual sides of the parts are marked with +, – and 0.

Example: It represents any x *

Pro part:
if its + side dominates: x * is great
if its ‒ side dominates: x * is exhausting
if its 0 side dominates: x * does not matter, (has become) worthless.

Contra-part:
if its ‒ side dominates: x * is bad
if its + side dominates: x * is liberating
if its 0 side dominates: x * is suppressed

0 part:
if its 0 side dominates: x * is nothing
if its ‒ side dominates: x * was lost
if its + side dominates: P has nothing more to lose.

Hints

Every It, even an opposite one, can generate all of these 9 basic patterns (although different in structure and content depending on the It). (See also `Spreading and compression´).
The change from one part or side to another occurs abruptly and not fluidly (similar to the quantum leap of an electron).
If you are looking for an interpretation of a phenomenon, this triad model is a good one.
For example: If I feel good, that good feeling can come from a pro, contra, or 0 part. For example, I feel good because I was moral (+ from the pro part), or because immorality was seductive (+ from the contra part), or I experience it as liberating to place myself beyond morality or immorality (+ from the 0 part).
This also means that any event (such as a symptom) can come from any It, but also from + or -A (which I will come back to) – but with different probabilities.
[However, the quality of the same connotations is also different and alienated, only in the first-rank systems is it real and adequate.]
The sides with the same connotations form groups / pacts, even if they come from different parts or It’s, but because of their backsides they are enemies. So superficial love² can quickly turn into hate or vice versa. (More on this later).

The It as a Nine-Sided Triad-model explains many contradictions

• Contradictory causes can produce the same results, and similar causes can produce completely opposite results. And vice versa: the same results (e.g. symptoms) can have similar but also different causes. And different results (e.g. symptoms) can have different but also similar causes. This also means that any event (e.g. a symptom) can come from any It (but also from +A or -A).
• With regard to the sides, this also means: Each of these sides can come from any of the main parts. As said before, the It is like a chameleon: it can appear and act as monade, dyad or triad. And the appearance depends on which of the sides of the different It-parts dominates.
(This probably also means that there are three main interpretations and nine more specific interpretations of every situation in WPI².)
Only +A¹ and -A¹ are undivided and have no backsides.
Therefore, the properties and dynamics of W² are very different from those of W¹.
• The transformation of the It into its opposites – such as the behavior or feeling of a person, which is dominated by an It, can suddenly and unexpectedly change into its opposite.
The model explains how people (or WPI as a whole) who interact with each other start out as best friends, but then, usually surprisingly and unexpectedly, can become enemies or completely indifferent to each other. (See also Reversal into the opposite and Possibilities of Interactions.)
• The model explains how paradoxes can arise.

In comparison to +A¹ and ‒A¹, that are not divided and have no backsides. The Its present themselves as centers of second-rate realities, divided into two sides (all-or-nothing) or three sides (pro-, contra- and zero-part) which also have backsides. Therefore, the characteristics and dynamics in W² are very different from W¹. ⁴³ (See also `Main links regarding opposites in this publication´).

The Different Valences of the It

• Considering the orientation of valences the following distinction can be made:
1. The opposites („hostilities”)
        a) contrary opposites
        b) contradictory opposites
2. The `pacts´ / fusions
3. The `nothings´ (nothingnesses)
• Considering the localization of the valences:
    1. Inner powers / valences inside the It.
    2. Power / valences of the It to the outside.

There are similarities to the theories of valence in language.⁴⁴ See also `Overview of all It-valences´ below..

Opposites, Fusions and Negations

I distinguish
• Opposite It with opposing world, people and I (WPI).
• Mergers, fusions, pacts with corresponding WPI.
• Negations.

As well too opposite Its (fig. left) as too equal Its ( fig. right) as too empty Its can, as its `carrier’ (WPI),

a. fight each other or
b. make pacts / reinforce / merge with
c. neutralize, dissolve each other or
d. turn into their opposite
– depending on which of their sides are “activated”!

In terms of the consequences, this means that new opposites or pacts or negations may have arisen from opposing or too similar or dissolving dynamics.

This illustration shows how two (or more) Its interact with each other, marked by their different sides, comparable to cogwheels. The pro-sA part of the It is shown without a pattern, the contra-part is gray and the zero-part is shown with dots.

They unite in the fight against W¹. As soon as another enemy is in sight, they make a pact. As soon as the enemy is defeated, they ruin their own comrades. This already shows the basic characteristics of disorders in society and in an individual.

The opposites and their dynamics

Here it is about pr opposites and their general dynamics of the It, the world, the people and the I or their parts.
As I said, the opposites can
a. fight each other or
b. make pacts / reinforce / merge with each other or
c. neutralize, dissolve each other or
d. also turn into the opposite
– depending on which of their sides are “activated”! (See graphic above).

    I distinguish:
• An absolute opposite between +A and ‒A.
• Relative ‘opposites’ (= polarities) between different Relatives.
• Strange absolute opposites (that’s what this is about):
                        contrary opposites between Pro/+sA and Contra/‒sA,
                        contradictory opposites between All and nothing resp. the ±sA and nothing.

Hints
I use Pro and + as well as Contra and ‒ synonymously; * indicates the absolutization.
For Pro/+ you can use: idol, ideal*, love*, luck*, etc. For Contra/‒sA you can use: `devil’, taboo*, hate*, etc.,
Yin-Yang ☯ is a symbol of the It opposites in balance.

In parallel one can distinguish: An absolute connection between the + A / God¹and the person with a + absolute attitude. Further: relative and strange absolute connections as fetters → fusions.

I mention: When a Relative is absolutized, its opposite is also absolutized. One extreme gives birth to another extreme, and so on. I.e., with the strange ‘everything’ we also choose the strange ‘nothing’. With the strange positive Absolute (or pro-sA), we also choose the strange negative Absolute (or pro-sA), and vice versa; and with them, the strange ‘nothing’. Thus, every uncorrected inversion creates a dyad (all or nothing) or a triad (pro-sA, contra-sA, and 0). In other words, a false God gives birth to a devil and vice versa, an ideal* creates a taboo* and vice versa, love* creates hate* and also always nothing, etc.
The It is defined by the fact that the mentioned parts are contradictory and too similar at the same time. The parts face each other like a reflection in a mirror. They are like opposite twins (dyad) or triplets (triad).
(Similarly ‘Oxymora‘ as a rhetorical device.)

An It part excludes the others, but at the same time it includes/ binds or negates them. That’s why you find that opposites attract or fight or negate each other. And the same with fusions and negations. One can also say that opposites are never only opposite, but also the same. Similarly, alliances also contain opposites and both negations (0). Second-rate realities and personal parts are both too opposite (contradictory) and too equal and too null.
In everyday language opposites are known in the form of the expressions “black or white” or “friend or enemy”.
The aforementioned statement that the extremes touch each other (“Les extrêmes se touchent”) also marks the situation very well, they are extremely distant from each other as well as chained together. An image and its reflection also represent the double character of such pro- and contra-forms. One can say: Nothing is as similar and as different at the same time as its reflection.
Depending on the situation, any of the three it-parts can be dominant. This means that it can be very different, contradictory and crazy, but also uniform and neutral. It seems to be the same at first, then the opposite, and finally disappears into nothingness.

The Opposites in the Realities

In the first-class reality (W¹), there is only one absolute opposition: The opposition between +A and -A. All other opposites in W¹ are only relative. Therefore it makes sense to speak here only of differences or polarities. There are R¹ which are polar opposites of another R¹ and therefore represent relative opposites. Both form certain pairs of opposites or antipoles, which could also be called “dipoles” or “tripoles”. In W¹ the relative parts are permeated and embraced by +A. They show fluid passages and no hard boundaries. There is diversity, not homogeneity. One might also say: Since no R¹ is absolutely separate from another, they are all connected (through the +A). Each part contains some of the other parts. However, people have to put the different parts into words in order to communicate with each other. These words are separate. They indicate the specific irrelevant pole of meaning of something without mentioning all the other meanings along with it.
When we describe an opposite or a difference in our everyday language, we usually do not indicate whether it is a relative or an absolute opposite – unless it is specifically expressed. However, this difference (relative, absolute, or pseudo-absolute) is very important for understanding our topic.
In the second-rate realities (W²), especially in their centers, the Its, these differences are perceived not as relative but as absolute – but in reality they are pseudo-absolute. Thus, the named opposites represent not only opposites in general, but also paradoxes, splits, and contradictions.

Analogies in physics and cybernetics

• Physics: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.” (Newton: 3rd law of mechanics). One could also interpret nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and radioactivity (decay) as special dynamics of second-rate realities.
• Color generates a complementary color.
• The quest for balance, KW self-regulation and feedback.
(For details see unabridged German version).

Main links regarding opposites in this publication

Note: I have arranged the links to the corresponding sections chronologically in such a way that I first list the emergence of the opposites and their becoming independent in the It, then their connection to fusions and negations, and finally I describe the opposites and their dynamics in realities in general and in/between persons in particular.

1. Inversion and Contra-Inversion
(There I describe how opposites arise in the first place and how they oppose each other.
2. The Emergence of the Parts of the It
(There I describe how opposites manifest themselves and become independent as part of the It.)
3. Opposites, Fusions and Negations (See above).
(There I describe how opposites, fusions, and negations are related.)

4. The Opposites and their Dynamics (See above).
(There I describe the opposites, their characteristics and their dynamics).
5. The opposites in the realities
(There I mainly describe the contrast between first-rate reality and second-rate realities.)
6. Overview of all It-Valences
(There you can find a graphic showing all possible valences of an It as a triad with respective Co-forms).
7. Interactions in second-rate Realities
(There I make statements about the dynamics of the opposites in W² in general.)
8. Complex personal dynamics and relationship disorders
(There I make statements about the dynamics of opposites between people.)
9. About the emergence of paradoxes
(There you will find a short description and a graphic of how paradoxes can arise.)
10. Inverted, paradoxical world
(There I mainly describe how and why our world/reality is so contradictory).
11. Ambivalent, paradoxical reactions
(There you will find statements about how and why we behave ambivalently or paradoxically).
12. Reversal into the opposite
(There you will find a brief description of how a system can tip over into its opposites.)
  13. Anticathexis
(There I describe how a defense can take place through opposites.)
  14. Opposites in Schizophrenia and their Dynamics
(There one finds explanations of the frequent contradictions and oppositions in schizophrenic psychoses).
   15. Solution (of opposites).
(There you will find explanations about first-rate solutions – including solutions to opposites.)

I cannot go into more detail here about dialectics as the philosophical doctrine of opposites. There is an extensive literature.
As far as I know these, the discussions are almost only about the dynamics of pseudo-absolute opposites (in the sense of sA).

The Fusions (Pacts)

In parallel to the opposites one can differentiate:
• An absolute connection between the +A / God¹and the person with + absolute attitude.
• Relative connections.
• Fusions, mergers, pacts as pseudo-absolute connections.
Like opposites, these can
a. strengthen each other or further merge and make more pacts
b. fight each other
c. neutralize, dissolve, negate each other or
d. turn into their opposite.
depending on which side of the underlying It is activated. (See figure above).
For more on contradictions, packages and cancellations, see the unabridged German version.

The Negations

See above or e.g. All-or-nothing relationships.

Overview of all It-valences

Pacts are formed by the same parts/sides with the same connotations and by opposites with opposite connotations. Shown by continuous lines → Parts/sides have the same effect.
Opposites/ contradictions/ enmities are created by equals with opposite connotations and by opposites with the same connotations. Shown by dashed lines → Parts/sides have opposite effects.
Neutralizations, cancellations are caused by the same ones, where the 0-side is activated at the same time, and by the opposite ones with activated 0-sides. Shown by dotted lines → Effects of parts / sides cancel each other out. ⁴⁵

The graphic also helps to understand the main paradoxes.
Originally in W¹, i.e. non-absolutized, those phenomena do not create pacts (equals), enmities (opposites) or neutrals. They only became such because of inversion.

Which Its Correspond to Which Ideologies?

Ideologies as examples for the collective It

Ideologies (`Ism´) are dogmatized worldviews, which means that they are determined by strange Absolutes. Ideologies, as collective Its are main representatives of the It.
The person as the cause of such ideologies becomes the last authority. As already mentioned, I see in ideologies (“official” as well as “private”) essential causes of mental disorders.
I have systematized them in the Summary table , column E.

Trial to allocate ideologies in the sense of this publication.

For further assignments, see Summary table column E.

Hypothesis: The dynamics and interactions between the Its and the ideologies are the same. ⁴⁶
Like the Its all ideologies would have both: misabsolutization and negation. An ideology, or sA, cannot integrate its opposite ideology but must fight it, although at the same time it owes its existence to its opposite. And one can conclude that all ideologies are potentially pathogenic – and even more so the more unlike they are to the positive Absolute (+A), or in other words, the less love they impart.

The personal It and the Strange Self

“If there is a dark power, that is evil and treacherous enough, to insert a thread in our inside and to pull it tight and to drag us down dangerous and mischievous ways …, then it has to adjust itself to us and has to become like we are; only that way we believe in it and make the room for it that it desires to fulfill its mysterious work.”
E.T.A. Hoffmann, the Sandman.

Explanation of key terms

sS = strange Self: strange personal Absolute. Qualitatively further distinguished in:
                +sS = the positive strange Self. Here equated with pro-sS.
                ‒sS = the negative strange Self. Here equated with contra-sS.
                    [asS = absolutistic sS (also hyper-Self) and rsS = relativistic sS are not dealt
                    with further in this abstract.]
p∀ = pAll = personal absolutized All. [Quantitative description of a strange Self. Mostly used in the contrast to the non-Self, p0 = personal nothingness.
p It = personal It: complex, that controls that person (P) and that contains two (all and nothing) or three (pro-, contra-sS and 0) parts as a dyad or triad.

Hints
Where the difference between `p It ‘and `sS’ does not matter, I use both terms synonymously.
Since this chapter is only about personal topics, I omit often the abbreviation `p’ for the sake of simplicity.

Synonyms and characteristic terms for p It
– Strange-, pseudo-, spare-, help-, emergency-, substitute-, compensation-, false-, divided center/ – Self of a person.
– ‘homunculus’, demon, parasite, devil, false friend, inner tyrant. Also: It as the dominant unconscious..

Introduction and Overview

Everything that was described concerning the emergence of the general It, also applies to the personal It. ⁴⁷

Analogous to the general It description, one can say: By inversion, something Relative is taken as absolute, and the actual personal Absolute, the Self, is negated. The absolutized Relative may come from the person himself, or it may have an external origin. In either case, something new, strange, and personal is created with its own characteristics and dynamics. That is to say, after a misabsolutization, a strange, second-rate Absolute, the strange Self, is created in the personal absolute sphere. With this misabsolutization, the person also negates a part of his or her Self, so there is not only a strange Self at the center of the person, but also a “non-self. These new, strange, central forces within the person are called the personal It in this publication. The personal It embodies a new and strange controlling power that coexists with the original primary power. Initially, P had dominance, but continuously loses its power and becomes the loser in this situation. A very important fact is that the individual is convinced that the strange Self and not the real Self is the right one. P is convinced that there are great benefits to be gained by choosing the strange Self. This fact is also a reason for holding on to the illness and refusing to get well. (Also see later: Freud’s Morbid gain and the Resistance).
The new strange personal trait appears like a kind of strange person within us. Of course, it is not a real new person that is created, but features that imitate the real person, take a certain place in a person, or take the place of the real person. Later we will discuss how the new strange personal parts can “talk” to us in the form of acoustic Hallucinations, or do many other things with us. The comparison with a homunculus as a kind of false person within us is obvious and will be used as a model for the personal It described in the following sections.
First, it is important to remember that the strange Self and non-self, like a kind of homunculus within a person, are both dimensioned and differentiated in a characteristic way that affects P in its psychic center. This becomes apparent in what I will call the Subject-object-reversal.
This means that wherever the sS/resp. It is in control, the person loses his subject-role and now becomes the It as subject and which determines the person as its object. This means that the person no longer lives a first-rate life, but a second-rate life, functioning only through the particular It. The second major result is a personalization of the It and a reification of the person. Things are seen as something personal, and a part of the person becomes a kind of thing.
Looking at the dynamics (verbs or predicates), the focus is on the beginning of the emergence of p It: The It becomes independent, changes and lives by itself. This process affects all seven aspects of the dimension and the associated differentiations of It.

Mutation and Adaption of the It to the Person, and vice versa

Depending on where the p It is established, two main changes can be discovered:
1. The It changes P in its sense, according to its pattern resp. the person adapts to the It.
But also:
2. The It adapts to the person. It becomes more like the person, such as a parasite that is adapted to the host organism..

Brief Overview of the Origins and Structure of the Personal It and the Second-rate Personal (P²)

1st step (inversion) was: P inverts R and A (that was discussed on top).
2nd step (realization): the absolutized R (R*) becomes sS = strange Self and the actual Self becomes non-Self. Both are building the core of p It.
3rd step: simultaneous differentiation BLQC (Being, Life, Qualities, Connections become strange).
4th step: The p It subjects further Relatives and forms new strange personal (P²).
That is, an absolutized something with originally relative dimensions and differentiations changes into a new strange personal “unity” (P²) with new strange dimensions, differentiations, and connections, and the actual Self and personal are lost at this sphere.
(The development of the p It can also be found in the Summary table column G.)

This graphic illustrates the development of the personal It (left to right). On the very left, there is a person with a healthy self- and relative-sphere. Rightwards, the inversion of a Relative and the Self is symbolized. Then, the creation of an It center (as a Yin-Yang symbol) is illustrated, which eventually creates its own relative sphere, as shown in the picture on the far right. You can also see, that the p It controls a part of P but the other part of P still contains the actual Self and has a first-rate relative-sphere, too.

Structure of the Personal It

Parallel to the structure of the general It, this is about the structure of the personal It.
Every p It, such as every other p unit, has three main dimensions: personal strange Absolute resp. strange Self, its relative sphere and nothingness and four main differentiations: strange personal BLQC.

Appearances of the Personal It

The personal It is per se a ‘triad’ and consists of three parts (pro +, contra – and 0).
However, it can appear differently:

as a monad (with only one direction of action)
as a dyad (like a binary split)
as a triad
The emergence of the personal It as a nine-sided triad is analogous to the generally described emergence of the nine-sided triad and will therefore not be described again.
(→ It as nine-sided triad)

Symbols
• Personal It as nine-sided triad:

These symbols represent the personal It as nine-sided triad.
Both graphics also illustrate how a person is caught within the triad.

• Yin-Yang ☯ is a symbol of the It opposites in balance.

Comparison to Similar Terms

• Freud’s ‘Id’ (see general part).
• Self- and object-representations.

I think:
– Everything that is relative may be a self- or object-representation (interior or exterior).
– The Its are special representations because they are dominating. Here, they are described also with the terms of their parts: strange Self and non-Self.

Main Characteristics of the Personal It

The personal It (p It) has the same main characteristics as the It in general. I want to address only briefly how they concern the person.
The p It has strange characteristics, especially those of a strange Absolute and of a strange nothing. It binds its own Relatives, differentiates itself and thus creates its own independent and personal entity. It controls certain areas of a person. It tries to expand or conquer other Its. It builds complexes and second-rate personal systems. Together they form a second-rate personal reality. It is no longer freely available to P², but can be voted out by P¹, but does not disappear immediately.
The further p It moves away from +A, the more mechanical and physical rules apply instead of the rules of life or the living spirit, since the It is more materialized than the spirit.

. ⁴⁸

How Can you Recognize the Personal It?

Phrases such as “always,” “never,” “absolutely,” “definitely,” “never,” “for sure,” and so on indicate absolutizing. Common phrases are: “I hate you,” “I love this more than life,” “You are my everything,” or similar. Also very typical: “I absolutely have to do that.

Everyday It and Lifelong It

As described in the section on the general It, the p It can be very ephemeral, but it can also last a lifetime. A thought that lasts and dominates for only a short time would be equivalent to a transient It. A traumatic experience in early childhood is an example of a lifelong It.

“Choice” of the p It

The decision of which strange Absolutes (sA) or It will be established often depends on the initial conditions. If a child lives in a dysfunctional family, it is likely to adapt (mostly unconsciously) to the sA of the parents. If the child is overwhelmed by arguments and aggression, he is likely to absolutize harmony and peacefulness as a reactive response to protect himself. Or, if disorientation, confusion, and follies dominate family life, a possible defense mechanism would be to protect oneself by focusing on prudence and regulation. However, false solutions are often the result of unconscious childhood defenses that appear to be a relief from unbearable situations. In other words: False solutions are often the result of our inner defenses that eventually become a prison or too costly.
(See also: Mental disorders from biographical perspective).
As adults, we adapt at such Absolutes (partly passive, partly active) usually because of a short-term advantage.
More about the Different forces and connections in the personal It, see the corresponding remarks in the general chapter.

Dimensions of the Personal It

The strange Self (the strange personal Absolute)

Terms

I repeat: The strange Self (sS) corresponds to the strange Absolute within a person. I call it the strange Self to distinguish it from the general strange Absolute and because the term “self” is more personal and less general. I usually use the terms ‘strange Self’ and ‘personal it’ interchangeably, unless I distinguish them otherwise. ⁴⁹

Typical examples for the strange Self:
as +*: achievements, idols, the ego, health, knowledge, status;
as ‒*: traumas, failure, impotence, illness, death;
But all Relatives are also possible as sS.

“False self” and other terms

“Thanks to Winnicott, we know about the concept of the true and the false self, where the false self adapts to the needs of an inadequate environment and the true self remains hidden and split.” ⁵⁰
Janov uses the term ‘unreal self’, R.D. Laing uses the term ‘divided self’.
Each of the above terms describes only one aspect of the strange Self, but does not include all aspects at once, which would be difficult. The term ‘strange Self’ emphasizes the alienation of the person, ‘spare self’ emphasizes the replaceability, ‘conditional self’ emphasizes that I only feel myself when I meet certain conditions, and so on. Taking into account all the different psychic aspects, one might come up with different terms that are also well suited. To me, the term ‘strange Self’ (sS) seems the best. The term ‘false self’ seems to be one-sidedly negative, because the sS also contains positive sides and no human being is free of it, and the term ‘divided self’ does not mention the possibility of fusions.

Structure of the Strange Self

Such as the actual Self, the strange Self contains a core, the core-strange Self, and connected, second-rate, strange Relatives, that are BLQC differentiated.
Whenever I speak of the strange Self, I am referring to the entire strange Self (and not only the core), unless I specify it differently.

Genesis of the Strange Self

Because of importance: Partial repetition.
How does the strange Self (sS) appear?
It arises according to the same principles as a general I/sA: after an absolutization of R, or a negation of A¹, which is not corrected, a new and strange (ns) center is established and differentiated within a person, a strange Self, which is experienced as the actual Self. Thus, a kind of dominant foreign object develops within us. Unlike other internalizations or introjections, this ‘personal strange object’ takes on the role of the Self, including all its characteristics. This creates a new personal reality that defines us. This is different from characteristics or personality traits that are created within us when they are only of relative importance.
Later we will see how the strange Self negates the actual Self. The strange Self behaves like the actual Self or personal Absolute and tries to adapt its characteristics. Therefore, the person experiences it with these absolute characteristics and accepts it as his own Absolute. Although the sS is never able to completely replace the actual Self, it achieves partial success: It partially represents the self and becomes very similar to it. This creates a situation typical of mental disorders: The strange Self is experienced as one’s Self, and one’s Self is experienced as alien (or as nothing). That’s why the person feels alienated most of the time. When the identification with an strange Self is very advanced, the sense of identity can be properly reversed: Then the person can have a subjectively good sense of identity even though he/she is objectively very alienated – and conversely, he/she can feel very alienated even though he/she is objectively self-determined.

Examples: obligation and possession as strange Selves (sS)

The graphic illustrates the emergence of two strange Selves* (dotted lines) with two new Egos (= strange-Is), besides the first-rate I in the middle, which is based on an actual Self.
1. Left: A Relative (here obligation, aspect 12) is being absolutized and invades into the self-area. A strange Self is created in the self-area, from which an Ego is now operating. That causes a partial self-loss and a division of the self-area and the Ego.
2. Right: Another illustration of the emergence of a strange Self and Ego: The I leaves the center and establishes itself in the relative edge area (here possession, aspect 9). Possession becomes the new strange center from which the Ego now operates.

I would like to explain the resulting situation in more detail using the above diagram. Suppose a person sees the fulfillment of his obligations as absolute (aspect 12). The fulfillment of obligations is then superior to the Self. The Self (self-confidence, self-worth, self-determination) is now mainly made dependent on the fulfillment of obligations. As long as the fulfillment of obligations is subordinate to the I, the I-self dominates, remains the boss in its own house, and from this position can deal with an offense against obligations adequately, i.e., relaxed and free enough. Then the ego-self “knows” that my ego-self is the more important, first-rate, more valuable, etc., and that the fulfillment of obligations has a relative meaning in contrast to it. However, when the fulfillment of obligations has become an strange Self, it now claims the same qualities that only the true Self should possess. But now the ego cannot simply get rid of the strange Self by willpower, because it has become materialized and personalized.
The terms “strange Self” and “It” describe very well that something strange has been created, which is acting by itself and determines me (e.g., it tears me apart, it depresses me, etc.). They already show the main characteristics of mental disorders. The strange Self has entelechy and its own dynamics in this position. New, strange dynamics and rules also govern the person in his/her center. They seem to be personal and some kind of self-propelled. As mentioned before, in the beginning the person has some short term subjective advantages by installing a strange Self, although later the disadvantages will increase. All the inverted parts of a person are like being put into new roles. However, the original, true Self will always exist, even if it is weakened. With the inversion to a strange Self, the absolutized Relative is subjectively more absolute, more unconditional, more primary (too important), more independent, more alive, more personal, more real, and more like the Self than it was before. Fortunately, it is impossible for the sS to become exactly like the Self. In addition to the strange Self, the partial negation of the actual Self also results in the development of a non-self, which I will discuss below.

+ and – strange-Selves

Note
+sS and ‒sS are synonymous with pro-sS and contra-sS.

Just as we have distinguished the strange Absolute as +sA and -sA, we can also distinguish the strange Self as +sS and -sS. +sS and -sS of the same aspect belong together. Per se, they are two relatively opposite poles of an aspect, but now separated by an absolutization, although they are also intimately connected. Absolutized opposites² are at once interdependent and separate. They are at once opposite and equal. Just as a reflection in a mirror is equal and yet opposite. They are at the same time interdependent and mutually exclusive. They are equal and different. Superficially, they are enemies, but when it comes to fighting a third person (object), they are accomplices.

+ strange-Self (+sS)

Synonym: pro-Self or super-Self, personal as: false God, golden calf, crutch, corset, also fixed or false ideals/objects of love/ glorified; ‘drugs’ (otherwise see +sA).

‒ strange Self (‒sS)

Synonym: against- or contra- or anti-Self, personal as: false enemies, or objects of hate, false demonization, traumas
(otherwise see ‒sA).

Strange-Self as Dyad with Reverse Sides:

Using the Yin-Yang symbol, the illustration shows a +sS and a ‒sS in pro- and contra-position
with its contrary reverse sides. (The non-Self and the 0-sides of +sS and ‒sS are not shown here).

We are about to discuss a very important aspect, that illustrates parallels to S. Freud’s term of morbid gain. Neither the strange Absolute nor the strange Self is solely negative (such as the Relative). Although they are generally unfavorably, they also have positive sides, that are determining in individual cases, whether a sS can emerge and stay for a long time. More specifically: By using specific strange Selves, the affected person can stabilize or restore his/her inner balance. The strange Self gives and takes. It replaces Absolutes with similar Relatives. The strange Self is neither an enemy within us, that has to be defeated nor the God, which has to be glorified.

Difference between strange Selves and Traits or Personality Signs

The strange Self is always of absolute importance to the person. Character traits can be of absolute or relative importance to a particular person, whereas a strange Self is always of absolute importance. In everyday language it remains uncertain whether, for example, the need for harmony is of relative or absolute importance to a person. In psychodynamics, however, the difference is important. The absolute position of the trait will cause all the results of a strange Self, which will be discussed further. This is not so in the case of a trait of relative importance. Then the effects of the trait will only have relative results. For example, the person cannot be divided by it. The situation is similar to someone who likes to drink alcohol (personality trait) and someone who is addicted to alcohol.

The Non-Self

Shortcuts and synonyms for the non-Self: p0², p0, not-Self, personal nothingness.

Emergence
The emergence of the non-Self is equal to that of the general It, the all-or-nothing-principle by sacrificing the actual Self. ⁵¹
See if necessary All-and-Nothing Emergence´ in general.
The Non-Self includes, in terms of the dimensions, especially the absence or loss of meaning, identity, reality, unity, security, freedom, personal foundation, and autonomy. The Non-Self includes, in terms of the differentiations, especially the absence or loss of primary personality, vitality, qualities, subject-role, and connectedness. Sources: especially nihilism and materialism.

The 7 aspects of the dimension of the personal It

Similar to The It in general. For more detail, see unabridged German version.

Differentiation of the Personal It

Differentiation of the personal It/ strange Self by ⁵²

        1. Structuring (here above all personalization)
        2. Vitalization
        3. Qualifications
        4. Contextualization, subjectivization.

The personal It or strange Self is established in a person at the border of spirit and body – initially, in the shape of a spiritual misabsolutization, that crosses the border to the physical, which then becomes a new form of strange being and life with specific connections. In this form as a personal It, it dominates the person and becomes an essential cause for mental disorders. It personalizes itself, becomes alive, specially qualifies itself and creates new, strange connections. Therefore it becomes a new strange personal being, life, quality and subject with a new context.
This personal It probably corresponds in the organic sphere to certain centers (I think not only in the brain) with certain functions, which in turn are functionally and organically connected with other relevant structures. The structures and functions have strange, especially all-or-nothing or pro-contra-or-nothing characteristics.

Especially to 4.
The p It becomes a new strange determining subject.
The main influence on the person is: The It makes P to its object.
Here, another additional characteristic of the strange Self/ It becomes visible: The strange Self takes the position of a personal, vivid subject, whereas P or the I take the position of an object. ⁵³ While the I-self as a subject previously rested on a solid ground, this unity is disturbed: an sS becomes a new and strange ground for the ego-parts and turns them into its object, instrumentalizes and functionalizes them – a situation that is prototypical for mental disorders. It can be called a Subject-object-reversal because what should be the object is now the subject and vice versa. Further consequences in this aspect can also be called subject-object split and fusion or identification, which will be discussed later. In contrast, in first-rate reality, there is only a kind of difference between the actual subject (God1 or I-self) and the objects (inner and outer reality), but there is no split. A real division takes place only between +A and -A.

Kinds of Personal It (overview)

Such as the It is in general, the p It also can be differentiated by:
        • origin and kind
        • localization
        • appearance. ⁵⁴

Origin and Kind

See mainly: ‘The It in general’

Individual personal Its

For individual aspects see Summary table column H. Examples: Obligation and Possession as Strange Selves, Illustration of a Single Second-Rate Personal Part, Adult-Ego and Child-I . The different ideologies as personal ids see → Which Its correspond to which ideologies.

In a humorous way (and in the style of Freud) the specific pIts could be labeled as following:
                All² = Totalo
                 +* = Libido, Eros, (Drives²)
                –* = Destrudo, Aggresso, Thanatos (death drive)
                0² = Nullo, Nego, Nihilo
                rsA = Relativo
                (and so on).

And the mental disorders that are caused by them could be jocularly called:
                absolutitis or totalitis
                libidinitis
                destructivitis
                nihilitis
                relativitis (more examples: moralitis, collectivitis, individualitis, rationalitis –
and all of them can be contagious if one does not pay attention.)

About ‘Libido’ and ‘death drive’

“In classical Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the death drive (German: `Todestrieb´) is the drive towards death, self-destruction and the return to the inorganic chemistry.”⁵⁵ “The death drive opposes to Eros as the tendency toward survival, propagation, sex, and other creative, life-producing drives … Usually, there is a mixture of the death drive and Eros, such as there is always some sort of aggressive parts in a healthy intimate relationship, which helps to satisfy a person with himself. The loss of balance of the two tendencies leads to mental disorders.”⁵⁶ If one focuses on Freud’s expanded understanding of the term “libido,” it becomes clear that it is very similar to the positive absolutization discussed above. (However, Freud’s libido does not refer to the actual positive Absolute, but rather to the absolutized Relative).
In this publication, I have almost equated `love’ with the first-rate Absolute (God¹) but love will nevertheless, without God¹, become a +sA as Libido, as it is presented in certain publications⁵⁷ but it is overstraining the human being. A similar parallel can be found between Freud’s ‘Destrudo’ and the strange Nothing (0²) and the ‒sA.

Special Cases

The Ego as a Strange Absolute

When P makes himself absolute, there is a special case. The person in question does not absolutize something foreign or attributes of himself (such as appearance, intelligence, status, etc.), but the core of his person, his Self. It is a self-absolutization. “I am absolutely above everything!” is the attitude. This is different from the actual absolute attitude described above, because it extends the absolute range of P to the entire Self.
This creates a very special situation.
The person makes himself his own center. P crowns himself. P rules over himself. P makes himself (or, more precisely, his Self), as it were, the ruler over himself. He himself becomes the It that represents him. P becomes perpetrator and victim at the same time. P exaggerates and at the same time submits to the exaggerated, enthroned Self.
Despite the absolutizing of P’s own Self, submission and dependence on the strange Self and It prevail in the long run.
Fortunately, the true Self is not lost, only suppressed.
This also means:
P splits, but never loses his deeper, original wholeness.
P identifies with an It and also alienates itself – but never loses his original identity.
P personalizes and individualizes It and depersonalizes and de-individualizes himself – but never loses his deeper, original personality and individuality. P makes an It into a subject and himself into an Its functionary and object – but never loses his original subject role. P is thus a primary subject and a kind of secondary subject (“Sobject”) at the same time. P is still his own ruler but also his foreign ruler and the subordinate at the same time.
Since nobody is perfect, – everyone is overstrained to be his own Absolute himself. (→ Ideal-I / narcissism). He is absolute, as mentioned, only in his basic attitude toward the Absolute. But if he makes himself the basis of his life, then he will take a position that is contrary to his nature. Unfortunately, we are often weak, flawed, or evil, and in these situations we need an Absolute that is stronger than our own person or other people. We need a space within ourselves, an island, a piece of heaven, where we are allowed to be very weak and helpless, to have no responsibility, to be beyond good and evil, that is, to be like children – otherwise we would get sick or go down in these situations.(→ `Adult-Ego and child-I´).

The You as It

See Complex Personal Dynamics and Relationship Disorders.

The `One’ as It

For example, one don’t do this . Or one absolutely have to do this etc. (normativism).

By Localization

I believe that the p Its are not localized in a specific area of the brain, but are psychic complexes that have materialized and dominate the person. Like a web, they are spread over many areas of the brain and body and have specific second-rate effects that will be discussed later.
Where can the Its arise? In all realities.
If in a person = personal It; otherwise as group It, society It, and so on.

Appearances of the Personal It

The pers. It is a ‘triad’ in itself and consists of three parts (pro +, contra – and 0).
However, it can appear differently as follows

as a monad (with only one direction of action)
as a dyad [`duality’].
as a triad [`trinity’].

Even if the p It appears as a monad or dyad, it is `really´ always a triad because the hidden, latent parts have not disappeared and can be activated at any time.

Monovalent sS/p It (monad)

The personal It appears as a monad, unilateral, monovalent and monistic, when
1- only one part of the personal It is activated
for example, everything or nothing, a -sS or a +sS, etc.
2- Two or more parts of the It, or their sides, work together and have only one effect.
Representatives of different ideologies also often act monadically. For example, they pretend to have the one and only truth. Whoever is not on their side is against them. Thus, they seem to be everything and everything else is nothing.

Ambivalent sS/ p It (Dyad, Hermaphrodite)

(Also see `Strange-Self as Dyad´ with Yin-Yang-symbol).

This is about the ambivalent personal strange Self, or It, which plays an important role in psychopathology. Specifically, It stands for division, ambivalence, contrast, contradiction, and conflict. It also partially stands for paradoxes and follies.
The contradictions, divisions, or paradoxes can be
         1 – In a strange Self or non-Self.
         2 – Between different parts of a personal It.
         3 – Between two or more sS or Its.
         4 – Between an sS or It and an actual Absolute.

About the ambivalence of the p Its:

The p Its are not only structured by the all-or-nothing-principle but the ‘all’, the ‘totally’ is – at least potentially – a divided unit, split in two (or more) connected opposites. On the contradictory opposite of this split unit (split into pro-sS and contra-sS), there is, on the other hand, the strange nothingness, so that arises like a triangle (triad) after which p It is primarily structured and in which a corresponding dynamism takes place.
As mentioned before, the choice of an absolutized ideal also includes the (unknowingly) choice of the specific opposite (an anti-ideal) and the deselection of the ideal also includes the deletion of the anti-ideal – and the other way around. The p Its, such as the It in general, are very contradicting in their characteristics.
The ambivalence (or trivalence) of the p Its does not only explain their complicated dynamics but also explains the paradoxes and the follies, that can be found in many mental disorders.
Similar conclusions can be found in the psychoanalysis. I am thinking of the so-called mixture of drives in S. Freud´s theory, who believed that the sexual drive and the death drive are mixed regularly. Alike, Lacan, who said that the death drive can be found in every other drive.⁵⁸
Similar conclusions can be found in the psychoanalysis. I am thinking of the so-called mixture of drives in S. Freud´s theory, who believed that the sexual drive and the death drive are mixed regularly. Alike, Lacan, who said that the death drive can be found in every other drive. Those points of view are very similar to that of mine, although I believe, that the mixtures are not only about the drives but about every kind of Relatives (which includes the drives). That becomes clear when looking at absolutizations of Relatives because both poles of them fused together (according to the drive-mixture) or stand in opposite position (which probably corresponds of Freud’s “drive-segregation”).
An overview of types of ambivalence is in the German unabridged version.

Analogy of Characteristics of the It and the Mental Disorders

One can compare psychic disorders with similar characteristics as the sS resp. p Its: they are of an independent, “active” and of quasi-personal nature. I think that with mental disorders, always the Self is affected. In contrast to changes in the relative sphere, where you find only easy disturbances.

EMERGENCE OF STRANGE, SECOND-RATE REALITIES

“This reality is nothing for me!” (A patient)

Optional chapter. If the reader is only interested in the
EMERGENCE OF THE STRANGE, SECOND-RATE PERSONAL see there.
[For an overview of the second-rate realities, see the Summary table columns L-N]

Introduction

This chapter is about the general effects of the Its on different realities resp. worlds: world/ persons and I (WPI).
For the sake of simplicity I take often `W’ alone as a collective term for WPI.
The Its create second-rate realities² (WPI²).
These take a part of the first-rate reality¹ (WPI¹). Therefore, they are connected with a loss of first-rate reality. Relative realities become (pseudo) first-rate, and first-rate reality becomes irrelevant (or subordinate). But first-rate reality can only be temporarily replaced by second-rate realities in areas where the It/SA is active. Since the first-rate reality is stronger than the second-rate realities, the first-rate reality is never completely gone/lost, so there are always first-rate and second-rate realities coexisting. The second-rate realities are dominated by one, more, or many Its that impose their characteristics upon them. An It generates WPI² in its entire domain, which is about all 23 aspects of the main effect that the It itself represents. (See later for details.)
This chapter is intended to discuss the creation of second-rate realities in general. ⁵⁹ As said, specifics of the personal changes you find in the next chapter.

Terms Regarding the Second-rate Realities/ Worlds (W²)

I often take as a synonym for second-rate realities = second-rate worlds = W².
The terms ‘reality’ and ‘world’ are often used synonymously and abbreviated to ‘W’. Otherwise, the concept of reality is superior to that of world.
I could not abbreviate reality with `R’ because this abbreviation stands for the Relative.
Second-rate is not equivalent to the meaning of first-rate Relative.
Second-rate realities include WPI² = [World, Person, I]².
As I read after the conception of this publication, C.G. Jung also speaks of different realities, his concept of “second reality” being similar to the concept of “first-rate reality” used here, and vice versa, his concept of “first reality” being similar to the concept of “second-rate realities” used here. (See also B. Staehelin: ‘Trust and Second Reality’).

Overview of the Phases

The different phases of emergence of the second-rate realities can be categorized as follows:
1^st phase: Inversion and emergence of the It as described.
Now: 2^nd phase: It produces WPI².

Overview of all It-effects on WPI, see in the Summary table ! or in the unabridged German version.

Emergence of the Different Areas of W²

So far, we described the It as new strange dominant, which core is made out of All² (pro/contra) and Nothingness².
Now we will see, how the It expands and how It causes new strange realities (W²).

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is grafik-36.png

This graphic shows how the It (including all It-parts) irrupts in the first-rate reality and what is created by that:
1st The created second-rate reality (here: world, people, I) is being dominated by the It-parts.
2nd WPI are put in a suppressed, relativized position (illustrated by the gray shade). They are also changed in the sense of the respective It – they become `it-similar’. On the other hand, you can see that WPI is sometimes able to get something positive from pro-sA-parts (`hyperforms´) because the It incorporates those parts as well.
3rd The It-parts are in italics to show that they too are changing. They adapt to the new strange reality, too.
4th The dashed line shows the loss of first-class reality.
5th The inner splitts of the It and also the WPI are indicated by the solid lines.

The It functions as it is. It is totally for or totally against or totally 0 and causes WPI to be also for, against or 0. Therefore, one can speak of a “principle of creation of a too equal, an opposite and a nothingness” in the second-rate realities caused by the It. The It determines the specific reality, changes the reality and makes it similar to the It. The difference, however, is that the described action occurs at the expense of the affected units, since this process is associated with a loss of prime reality, even though it initially seduces the oppressed person with greater benefit.
Different Its determine in the form of the prevailing zeitgeist different groups or societies or generations.

The following spheres of these second-rate realities (WPI²) shall be distinguished:
1. The It (as a dominant center).
2. The sphere dominated by the It, which can be subdivided into:
       Pro-sphere = + hyper-forms with Co-forms, participants, functionaries, followers.
       Contra-sphere (with opponents).
       0 sphere, negated or sacrificed sphere.
The individual spheres overlap.

Basic possibilities of deviation from the optimal probably reflect a similar classification:
too much (= pro-forms or hyper-forms), false (= contra-forms) and 0 (nothing).
Incidentally, I think that the mental disorders discussed later have similar patterns, too.

Chronological sequence: At the beginning, there is a pro-dynamic: The It first forms a pro-sphere (+ hyper-forms) in WPI – but at the cost of first-rate reality. Its loss causes the formation of the + hyper-forms, which finally become so expensive that the system² tips over to the opposite (contra or 0 forms). (→ Reversal into the opposite)
Generally formulated: pairs of opposites* exist at the expense of first-rate reality. If a pole* is too expensive, it turns into an opposite (or vice versa). The system² can oscillate between two extremes until it dies or finds an emergency solution or the actual solution. For examples, see in `Complex Personal Dynamics and Relationship Disorders´.

Important:
1. All Its require sacrifices.
The sacrificial sphere of WPI increases throughout the process because the Its use WPI to stay alive and to remain dominant.

Roles of the It(s) in W² as Dictators, Parasites and Offenders

In the second-rate realities, the Its are like dictators with their helpers, that dominate everything else in their territory. They can also be compared to parasites/viruses/demons, depending on their respective characteristics. The Its impose their programs on realities, usually using the all-or-nothing principle. As the examples show, they act in different ways. Sometimes their actions are paradoxical or contradictory, but they are never exclusively negative. Especially in the beginning, their effects seem to be very positive. In the long run, however, they become disruptive and pathogenic. Everything is subordinated to them: truth, freedom, reality, other people, and finally the affected reality or person itself. Although the person seems to be elevated in the beginning, in the end he/she is degraded. (The It as offender and the Person as victim see below).

Hierarchies in W²

There are rigid hierarchies from It/sA to its R, as well as from It/sA to other It/sA. (Typical for W²). Second-rate systems of our inner world can be compared to totalitarian states: There is a central, powerful It that dominates everything, like a dictator. One level below are the contributors/participants/officials, and at the bottom are the powerless people who receive the orders.
The system is very sensitive: If only one of the participants is questioned or attacked, the whole system is endangered. Therefore, it reacts accordingly harshly and mercilessly, but it will also sacrifice its own participants if necessary.
The It subjugates its own Relatives like subjects. Although it gives them a second-rate center/sense/support, it takes away their independence. The new strange Relatives have to sacrifice themselves for the It if there is any kind of danger. An It, however, will never sacrifice itself for its own members. In the end, however, the It is also powerless if it is without its Relatives, its subordinates. It can be compared to other systems that collapse as soon as their center disappears (domino effect), so the It is both overpowering and powerless, (pseudo) absolute and irrelevant at the same time.
Compare to Therapeutic Goals / Value Hierarchies of the first-rate reality.

Hypotheses about the It-effects

– The Its affect not only the individual, but also entire societies – ultimately our world as a whole. (More on this later.)

– The Its change the WPI in their sense. The WPI becomes `It-like. (Just as the other hand, It, adapts to WPI).

– The It-effects are not total, but they are all the stronger and more pathogenic the greater the difference between sA and +A.

– The Its work beyond their own aspect. All Its cause changes in all 7 aspects of dimension and in all 4 main aspects of differentiation. The It of a particular aspect also causes the main changes/defects in its specific aspect, while It causes side effects but also facultative effects in all other aspects. Example: Absolutization of truth has a special effect on the question of true or false, but it also has an effect on all other aspects. Suppose a family has absolutized truth, then the family is subject to the dictates of unconditioned truth-telling. This sA Truth* will then also determine certain spheres of being, life, qualities and relationships (BLQC) of the family. It also creates two opposite poles that can be called “lie” and “indifference.
(See the section `Spreading and compression´).
– All Its can have all results – even positive ones.
All Its are in principle capable of causing any kind of second-rate forms. All Its have all kinds of results, negative and positive. I.e. a -It can cause +² and a +It can cause -².
Therefore, the back of a -It can have positive effects and the back of a +It can have negative effects. For example: I am not allowed to feel good, I am not allowed to accept love, love is negative; being hated is positive. Or sickness* gives identity² or meaning² and so on.
Also: Any It can cause sickness as well as health. Although the It usually causes disease.
The contradictory effects of It are important for understanding paradoxes and certain psychopathologies.

The juxtaposition of contradictions

The strangeness, the contradiction, the split, the fused, and in the truest sense of the word “craziness” seem to be particularly striking as It effects.
Here I use mainly very general and basic terms, which change when used in specific areas. The splitting of a married couple would be called divorce or separation, the splitting of the inner self would be called split personality or schizophrenia. However, I believe that the basic principles of the emergence of these so-called second-rate realities and their characteristics are very similar and interrelated.
The new, strange, second-rate realities have lost the actual Absolute and are therefore not unambiguous, unique (etc.), but ambiguous, paradoxical, contradictory (etc.)..⁶⁰
This contradicts our usual way of thinking and speaking. We may talk about this person being chaotic, this person being rich, this person being arrogant. Or that the environment is this way or that way, etc. That is, we often see only the superficial, “activated” pole of something. But in reality, the second-rate reality or person also carries the corresponding opposite and a 0-part within itself.⁶¹
That’s why, per se, we’re dealing with double- or triple-split entities like “finite infinity”, “dead life”, “poor wealth”, “empty abundance”, “strange Self”, “sweet revenge”, “liberating disease” and so on, but that’s not what you’re saying. Therefore, sometimes what is “normally” right can be wrong, or what is “normally” logical can be false or illogical, or what is good can be bad, or what is otherwise moral can be immoral. Or it may be wiser to lie than to tell the truth, or better to be sick than to be well, etc.
These situations seem paradoxical..

It-effects on the Dimensions of WPI

About the Areas a1-7⁶²

About a1: Disturbance of the Absolute

“I am the spirit of always saying no…” Mephisto in Faust

With regard to the It-effect in this aspect, one can formulate:
It negates, disturbs or hyper-absolutizes WPI.
→ “Victory of the Relative over the Absolute”.

About a2: Disturbance of Identity

Referring to the It-effects in this aspect, one can formulate:
It derealizes, falsifies or over-realizes the spheres of reality that are dominated by It.
(More in `Disorder of the person’s identity´)

About a3: Disturbance of Reality

Referring to the It-effects in this aspect, one can formulate:
It derealizes, falsifies or over-realizes the spheres of reality that are dominated by It.
Hypotheses: Not only the It of this aspect, but all the Its of the other aspects cause some kind of loss or falsification of reality. Artificial realities are created and the actual reality is experienced as falsified or negated. On the other hand, a part of reality can become one-sided or unambiguous (`hyper-reality’) due to hyper-realization.

About a4: Disturbance of Unity

Referring to the It-effects in this aspect, one can formulate:
It chaotisizes or splits or fuses subordinated areas of reality.
(More in `Disorder of the person’s unity´)

About a5: Disturbance of the Unconditioned

The Its in this aspect unsettle, misprogram or determine and fix.
Thus, the corresponding Its generate fixations, cause unconditionals, provide preconditions, urge, admit no exception – and on the other hand: Its release and forsake WPI.

About a6: Disturbance of the Priorities

The Its in this aspect uproot or level, dislocate or make extremes.
Its make actual priorities as second-rate or negate them.
They also generate “hyper-centers” and “hyper-causes” (e.g., in the form of false causes).
Also: Results will become causes/ and causes become results or nothing.
The It/sA are often like exponents: They potentiate a negative or a positive situation.
The Its of this aspect also have effects of Its of the other dimension aspects.
All Its also lead to more or less great loss of overview meta-level/ “horizon”.
Parallel in the literature: “The lost horizon” by James Hilton.

About a7: Disturbance of Independence

WPI become due to the Its more or false dependent or -independent and the Its dominate and automatize WPI-parts.

Changes of Differentiation

The 4 Main areas of Differentiation

Overview of changes:

	Sacrificial-sphere	Disturbance-sphere	Hyper-forms, participants, functionaries [1]
Being Life Qualities Connections Subj./Obj.	It destroys It kills It disqualifies It decontextualizes It desubjectivizes	It materializes It functionalizes only It misqualifies It miscontextualizes It instrumentalizes	It ideologizes It hyper-vitalizes or hyper-functionalizes It hyper-qualifies It hyper-contextualizes It hyper-subjectivizes

[1] The participants, as already mentioned, have also the characteristics of the Its themselves.

About I. Disturbance and Reversal of Being

„It always happens the same in history:
an ideal, an elevated idea coarsens itself, is materialized.“ (B. Pasternak)

The Its disturb and mistake matter and spirit.
The Its destroy, materialize (reification) or ideologize WPI.

This means that mechanical or physical laws and patterns often come to the fore and dominate the spirit in the second-rate realities determined by Its. It also means that the second-rate being is mainly too material, objective and tangible, and the realities are more monotonous and mechanized. People who are so constituted are close to robots and machines and have corresponding dynamics (↑ functions).
Or it is a being full of ‘strange spirits’ or it is both, side by side.
(See also corresponding experiences, e.g. in psychosis, later).

About II. Disturbance and Reversal of Life

The Its disturb and confuse life and functions.
The basic impacts in this aspect are:
The Its gain life and vitality and WPI only function or die. (reversal of life and functioning).
Only in the role of a participant, WPI will be hyper-vitalized.

About III. Disturbance and Reversal of Qualities

The Its disturb and confuse the qualities.
The Its in this aspect have gained absolute quality, whereas WPI only receives a relative quality or no quality at all.
They disqualify or misqualify WPI. The misqualification may also contain that they put WPI in a role of a participant and then WPI will be of oversized, quasi-absolute importance. That importance can be positively or negatively connoted. The reversal of qualification may also consist of the reversal of negative and positive or other qualities.

About IV: Disturbance and Reversal of Subjects, Objects and Contexts

The Its disturb and confuse subjects and objects.
Due to reversal, the Its as original objects became subjects and cause now original subjects (especially persons) to become objects. The person is no longer the master in its own house.
This Subject-object-reversal will be discussed more when talking about the It-effects on a person. The Its in this aspect also cause mistakes of the connections: Relative connections become unconditional, absolute connections (e.g.,: guilt – punishment) and relative disconnections become absolute. That causes misconnections and misseparations to appear.

Change of Units

1. Negation (all or nothing)

“Since Copernicus, man seems to have got himself on an inclined plane –
now he is slipping faster and faster away from the center into –
what? into nothingness?” F. Nietzsche

The main effect in this aspect is: the Its negate and destroy.
More specifically: They create All² but especially nothing².

As ideologies, they appear mainly in the form of totalitarianism, reductionism and nihilism. They change WPI especially in a nihilistic, totalistic and reductionistic way so that WPI is negated, destroyed, isolated or totalized (as a participant and functionary).
This mainly leads to the loss of the first-rate All and the individual. Therefore, reality seems to be emptied, isolated or totalized. The division can be called ‘all-or-nothing division’.
It ‘claims’ everything* or nothing*. An example of this is the digitalization of the world, of life, with all its advantages and disadvantages. If objects are digitized, it has rather advantages, but the digitization of the person has considerable disadvantages, because life is lost..

2. Profanation

The main effect in this aspect is: the Its profane.
The Its as ideologies, especially in the form of superstition, spirituality, secularism and atheism, profane, demonize or idolize WPI. WPI primarily loses the positive Absolute (God, Love, Meaning) thereby creating a state of godlessness, lovelessness and futility or strange gods.

3. Reification and False Personification

The main effect in this aspect is: the Its (especially personal Its) reify the personal and personalize themselves ⁶³or other things. (Further see the Disorder of person and things.)

4. Deindividualization

The main effect in this aspect is: the Its de- / misindividualize or hyper-individualize.

5. Despiritualization

The main effect in this aspect is: The Its causes soullessness and spiritlessness and somatize (themselves or something).
The Its negates or even kills or alters actual spiritual, mental, or psychic realms. Spiritlessness and soullessness are created in certain systems (e.g., something becomes meaningless, spiritless, or ideologized.) It effects of this aspect can be found in all ideologies. In particular, they can be found in the spiritual realm as a consequence of spiritualism, in the psychic realm as a consequence of psychologism, and in the physical realm as a consequence of so-called healthism.

Detailed representation concerning the person see chapter `It-effects on P´..

Illustration of Different Strange Realities

In general, I believe that the Its affect our world as a whole. This creates a juxtaposition of first- and second-rate realities.

Many social systems have some of the characteristics of the It effects mentioned. For example: divisions between rich and poor, powerful and powerless, living and dead, etc., or in the form of opposing social systems such as communism/capitalism, or in the form of deadly ideologies that can cause consequences such as the Holocaust, genocides, racism, nationalism, etc. They are also composed like the all-or-nothing principle or the pro- or contra-principle, and can be divided into the disturbing sphere, the participating sphere, and the sacrificial sphere.
As mentioned before, all second-rate realities have these characteristics, and the more a negative has been positively absolutized or a positive negatively absolutized, the more they have these characteristics.
In other words, in a society in which brutality, misanthropy, aggression, war (and so on) are viewed positively and the opposite tendencies are suppressed at the same time, the negative characteristics of the second-rate reality will be seen more and more. A society in which humanity and peace (etc.) are valued, which is very similar to a truly positive world, is less divided and less disturbed. However, here on earth, no society can be formed that is perfect and without the above-mentioned second-rate characteristics.

Different Environments

It/sA and their consequences can also be found outside of the person in different environments. Example: Ecological damage, armories (etc.), as results of the It/sA and with effect on the person.
Concerning families see later in `Complex Personal system and relationship disorders´.

Virtual Worlds

The increasingly important virtual worlds also belong here, if they dominate the person.

Ideologies

Major mindsets, ideologies, or religions belong here when they dominate the person. They are not the bad/evil themselves, because they also have positive parts. They are determined by collective strange Absolutes. They should not be fought but criticized, and a person should pay attention to them and try to integrate the positive aspects.
In the history of mankind, there have been many wrong solutions. Usually, they can be recognized as the above-mentioned ideologies, including their advantages and disadvantages. They are forms and aspects that are always created in new ways that are still the same in the end and that all represent the same or similar “games”.
The most important ideologies have already been mentioned..⁶⁴ Especially the social sciences, usually social psychiatry and systematic therapies, focus on these issues. In contrast to them, I will try to present known problems from a new perspective.
I repeat that I am convinced that the mentioned second-rate forms and their dynamics are not only to be found in a general form (environment etc.), but also in the person (and both are connected with each other). Here as well as there, they are essential foundations for disease, and just as one can speak of sick people, one can also speak of sick (and disease-causing) societies and environments.

Summary

The general effects of It can be summarized as follows: They create new strange realities, which are also called second-rate realities. These second-rate realities are structured according to the all-or-nothing pattern: The suppressed reality-sphere is either completely adapted to the certain It, or it is seen as contrary/hostile, or it is negated and liquidated. Considering the different dimensions (a1-a7), the It causes mainly the following changes:
Negation and relativization; homogenization and alienation; derealization and falsification; conglomeration and splitting (and merging); destabilization and malprogramming; dislocation and displacement; dependence and suppression of different realities (WPI).
Considering the 4 main differentiation, the Its mainly cause the following changes:
Destruction and materializing; killing and functionalization; dis- and false qualification; desubjectivization and instrumentalization; disbanding or defective connections.
Considering the pr units: Destruction and isolation; negation and profanization; depersonalization and reification; deindividualization and massification; despiritualization and somatization; castration and disorder of love.
The terms listed are to be understood as keywords – more can be found in the following chapters on the person or the Summary table.

EMERGENCE OF THE STRANGE, SECOND-RATE PERSONAL

An overview on the second-rate personal can be found in the Summary table columns Q-S.

Introduction

So far we have briefly discussed the emergence and general effects of the Its. Now we’ll look more closely at the effects of the Its on the person, since this is the most important for our topic.. ⁶⁵

Hint
For the sake of variety, I sometimes only speak of one It, of Its in the plural or of three I-parts (pro +, contra ‒, 0).

Comparison of the It-effects on the Reality in General and the Person Specifically.

The effects of the Its on the person are very similar to the effects of the Its on reality in general. The main difference is that the person has direct access to the absolute sphere. This means that P has an absolute choice. In contrast, non-personal subjects do not have the choice to accept or reject an inversion. Only the choice and/or identification with an inversion can lead to the emergence of a personal It.
In essence, then, something becomes personal and the personal becomes like something.

Transference of the Its from Other Realities

The Its can come from the person or it can be transferred to P from other systems. This transfer occurs through the A-spheres of the systems. Disturbances in society, such as splits, can cause disturbances (splits) within individual people. The transfer of disturbances is not one-to-one, i.e. the disturbance within the person does not have to be the same as the disturbance in society. Since the opposites are very close, the individual is often affected by one of the opposites!

Person-It-Reversal

In addition to changing parts of reality according to its image, as described above, it also changes parts of the person according to its image. In this chapter we will discuss how the It imposes its characteristics on the person. I will call this general change Person-It-Reversal. The It gets quasi-personal characteristics and becomes like a person and imposes its characteristics on the person. These changed personal areas will be called second-rate personal = P².
But besides these changed, strange personal areas, there will always remain ‘healthy’ P¹ parts, which is very important for the therapy.
The It and the person change roles. ⁶⁶

Person¹	↔	It
absolute self actual, real whole, unit unconditional first-rate independent pers. being life qualities subject	↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔ ↔	relative strange seemingly divided conditional second-rate dependent thing, matter exist, function strange qualities object

Considering the 7 DM-aspects:⁶⁷
The It becomes similar to the first-rate personal: pseudo-absolute, pseudo-self, pseudo-real, pseudo-unified, pseudo-autonomous, pseudo-individual, and pseudo-spiritual.
On the other hand, actual personal aspects are changed by the It and become: too relative or irrelevant, strange, not actual, divided, heteronomous, materialistic, and apersonal. Thus the person becomes like the original It.
Considering the DF aspects: The person exchanges (living) being with only existing, life with functioning, heavenly happiness with earthly excitement, and the subject role with an object role. Now the person is an object and dominated by the It as a strange subject..⁶⁸
In addition, the person exchanges individuality for egocentricity or uniformity, freedom for distance or confinement, reality for unreality or “hyper-reality,” security for defenselessness or armor, and so on.⁶⁹
Since the absolute-area of a person has a spiritual dimension but the Relative is more materialistic, one may also talk about a spiritual-thing-reversal of a person.
(See also Subject-object-reversal).

All Parts of the P² (Overview)

In this table, `strange’ is only a key word for all possible second-rate characteristics.
Further see Summary table column O-S.

– Concerning the areas, P² consists of the strange Self in the absolute-area and its relative areas.⁷⁰
– Concerning the rank, P² is of second-rate or 0.
– Concerning the orientation we find three P²-parts:
    1.  pro- resp. +part (hyper-forms/ participants/ functionaries)
    2.  contra- resp. ‒part
    3. sacrificial-part (P0)
There are also (still) free first-rate parts = residual-P¹.
The strange person (P²) is multiply divided:
On one side the person is similar the It, and on the other side he/she is mainly their victim; On one side the person is his/her own master and on the other side he/she is his/her own slave; On one side the person is his/her own God/idol and on the other side his/her own devil/enemy; On one side the It of P became personal and on the other side the person became like a thing; On one side the It of P became strange subject and on the other side P became strange object.

The introduced classification of the second-rate personal and the different parts of P’s It is arbitrary. It mainly shows the negative nature of It. The core of It, in its role as a second-rate subject, acts mainly as a perpetrator. In the further area of It are the most damaged or sacrificed parts. However, we have to qualify this point of view because the It also has positive aspects for the person (especially at the beginning) in the form of + hyper-forms in which the person participates (as `participant’).
Because it is important, I repeat that P² has not only disadvantages but also hyper-positive aspects such as: hyper-self, hyper-identity, hyper-security, hyper-well-being, hyper-activity, hyper-vitality, too much love, and so on.

Is the Strange It Some Kind of Homunculus within Us?

• The It in this publication is very similar to what is meant by the term homunculus. I have mentioned it before. The It and the homunculus are similar when it comes to the idea of something being created within us that has personal characteristics, especially a certain autonomy, that cannot be directly and voluntarily influenced by the person.
• The similarity of an It, or of a homunculus to a person is the greatest when the It represents a real person (e.g., when another person was idealized by the affected person.)
Also see: causes for Hallucinations.-
Depending on how useful or harmful the homunculus is within us, it acts like a dictator and tyrant, a virus or a parasite. But the best case scenario is that it lives within us as a symbiote. In that case, it is neither good nor evil.
• The `homunculus’ usually has a complicated structure made up of different Its that sometimes work together and sometimes fight and hinder each other.

Changes of the Personal Dimension Areas

Each It/sA disturbs more or less all 7 dimensional aspects (DM) of the person.
They disturb especially the right to self-determination, identity, authenticity, uniqueness, unity, unconditional dignity, right to life, independence and freedom. It can be compared to a disturbance of the general human rights.

a1 Disorder of the Absolute Area of a Person

The Its, which affect this aspect, have a nihilistic or relativistic or absolutistic character. That means:
– they negate the personal Absolute, or
– they relativize the personal Absolute, which will also be alienated, divided, suppressed, falsified and insane, or
– they may also hyper-absolutize the absolute-area of a person. For example by idolization of a certain part of the person.
The main effect of the Its on people is their negation.
With that, the person loses the first-rate personality, the Self and other connected characteristics on the territory of an It.

P loses more than he/she wins.

An It was created as follows: mainly too pro (hyper) too weird or opposite, less 0.
The effects of It on P are the other way around: The focus is on the negation of P, then there is the alienation and creation of opposites, and then there is a little bit of pro-participation. This means that the It mostly steals parts of the person and only gives back a small part. So the It is mainly the perpetrator and the person is mainly the victim.

The loss of one aspect also means the loss of other aspects.

For example: The loss of identity is also a loss of security, reality, unity of a person, their priority and basis, their independence; and also means the loss of first-rate spirit, live, quality, subjectivity and so on – but also first-rate relative areas are being lost.

a2 Disorder of the Person’s Identity

The Its of this aspect mostly cause P to become too uniform, alienated, or hyper-identified.
Ideologies of this aspect would be uniformism, determinism and philosophies of identity. Everyday examples are phrases like “you are just like your mother”, “you are a blighter”, “you are the greatest” (and similar).

In this aspect, I also discuss the following topics because they are essentially related to identity:
1. Transformation and alienation
2. The emergence of paradoxes.

1. Transformation and Alienation

In our lives we are confronted with the phenomenon that everything psychically relevant can be transformed.
In a passive direction, from outside to inside: For example, the consequences of other people’s actions can be internalized. In an active direction, from inside to outside: Physical or psychical things are expressed in actions and functions. There are many changes on the way from outside to inside or vice versa.
We can also find analogous changes in the language.
I want to give a specific example of that. Suppose someone is raised in a chaotic family, then he can become chaotic.
If we analyze the process, we will find out that there are four steps.
    1st step: The parents confuse the affected person.
    2nd step: The person is getting confused.
    3rd step: The person is confused.
    4th step: The person is chaotic.
Let us also consider the additional, following steps:
5th step: The strange Self (sS) (here: the confusion*) acts in him: It disorders and dissolves him and
6th step: a) P disintegrates and b) and his actions become more disordered and irregular.
What happened? To answer this in a very simple way, one could say that the parent’s behavior causes something to emerge in the affected person. Something that acts on its own and causes the person to malfunction and act wrongly.

The analysis of language shows the change in a similar way: A verb (to confuse) becomes substantive (the confusion) which makes a verb again. More specifically: 1st step: verb (to confuse) → 2nd: processual passive (getting confused) → 3rd: participle (is confused) → 4th: adjective (chaotic) and a new substantive (the confusion) → 5th step: The strange Self (sS) (here: the confusion*) acts in him: it disorders and chaotizises him and 6th: a) processual verbs (the person disintegrates) with b) new adverb (actions and procedures become more disordered and irregular).
The sequence illustrates how in the person concerned strange-new can originate, which affects by itself (!) and changes our actions and functions. The actions also get a too functional character because they don’t come from the real I-self, like the first-rate actions but from strange Selves resp. strange-Egos.
Broadly speaking: The I-self lives above all, but the other ego functions or reacts more.

Just as a quick reminder, I believe that the changes described are only possible when the absolute sphere of the person is disturbed. A true Absolute compensates for such disturbances. Disturbances are seldom caused by only one sA, but more often by many sA with corresponding mainly negative actions. Example: One may be confused not only because he/she has been confused by others, but also because the person has been disoriented, oppressed, disenfranchised, devalued, infantilized, etc.

a) From the inside towards the outside:
The behavior of P is alienated by strange Selves (sS)
in the person (P).

b) Exterior signals are being alienated by strange-Selves (sS)
of a person, too.

2. About the Emergence of Paradoxes

                                                           I saw various things that looked the same
                                                           and same things that looked different –
                                                           and I searched for the reason.

Hypotheses Paradoxes may occur:
1. Due to inversion, when first-rate aspects become second-rate aspects or when second-rate aspects become first-rate.⁷¹

2. By changing the properties of sA,
a) one or more equal sA become opposite sA,
b) one or more opposite sA become equal.⁷²

The purpose of this illustration is to show that a sA has three parts that have completely opposite connotations,
and that the 3 opposite sA can have the same connotation when a backside is activated.
That, paradoxically, one and the same sA can be experienced quite oppositely, and a contra-sA as well as a pro-sA,
when its backside is activated.
Or you can experience a pro-sA and a contra-sA as 0.

a3 Disorder of Personal Reality

The It that mainly affects this aspect comes from ideologies such as realism, objectivism, and positivism.
It is hyper-realistic, false and deceptive or unreal.
It affects P or parts of him:
1- It derealizes the person.
2. It distorts and inverts a person’s reality and creates a contradiction between different realities.
3. It hyper-realizes a person. P often has a compensatory benefit in the form of a new personal reality that initially seems positive.
It paradoxically causes the person to see unreal aspects of themselves as real and real aspects as unreal.

a4 Disorder of the Person’s Unity

Main effects:
    1. It splits the person.
    2. It creates new strange split personal parts that contradict each other or fuses personal parts with each other or
    3. It creates new strange personal hyper-units by fusing.
Possible ideologies: Monism, syncretism, structuralism, pluralism, atomism, reductionism.
Paradox: The person now experiences the actual personal unity as dissolved or split or other personal parts fused.
An additional paradox is that the same personal part may be experienced in different ways.
See also: Splittings and fusions in Schizophrenia.

About Fusions

“If I do not have it, I fall apart” – a patient.

The It fuses with parts of the person or fuses different parts together. It is as if parts of the person are compressed and fused together. This can create a sense of compact wholeness that keeps the person from splitting. Although this may be the case temporarily, in the long run the fusions promote splitting. Fusions and splits occur side by side or alternately.
What can be split (see section below) can also be fused by the It. For example, subject-object fusion, fusion of different objects, etc.

About Splittings

This topic reappears when discussing Schizophrenia.

Inversions can lead to splittings in all known areas:
This means that there can be divisions in all aspects of the dimensions and differentiations.
(eg: subject-object-split, matter-spirit-split or soul-body-split).
Like a single person, so a whole group of people, a society (like any system) can be split (and also fused, suppressed, scared etc.).A relative difference is made to the absolute opposite. There is then only absolutely true or absolutely untrue, right or wrong, black or white, pro or contra, only good or evil, only all or nothing, only friend or enemy, only for me or against me, either perpetrator or victim, strong or powerless, saints or whores, and so on.
Double messages, paradoxes, contradictions (or similar) are caused by splittings. Messages that are too one-sided or too general are caused by fusions.

The main splittings or breaking points within P:

             The main splittings in P²:
    1. between the first-rate P¹ and the second-rate P².
    2. between the all and the nothingness of P².
    3. between the pro- and contra-parts of all.
    Additional splittings are possible between all parts of P²

Briefly about Subject-Object-Splittings

Due an inversion, a first-rate subject becomes an object. Or it may function only as a second-rate subject, as a Strange-I, and also lose its connection to its original first-rate objects.
This causes a split within the subject sphere into a first-rate subject and a second-rate subject, as well as a split between the strange subject and a first-rate object.
There are only relative contradictions between a first-rate subject and second-rate objects, because the first-rate subject can tolerate second-rate objects.

Briefly about the Emergence of Opposites

Inversions cause opposites:⁷³
Consequence: Side by side of opposites:
    narcissism # self-hate
    fear # lust
    hate # love²
    too much proximity # too much distance etc.

Hint
You can read the possible opposites in all aspects in the Summary table in column N.
They are marked there on the one hand by ↓ and on the other hand by ↑.
Otherwise see also `It-parts as opposites …´.

a5 Disorder of the Person’s Safety and Freedom

    1. This It makes the person insecure. It causes a loss of safety and freedom.
    2. It misprograms the person. It sets up demands on P. It forces, compels and does not allow exceptions.
    3. It causes hyper-safety and hyper-freedoms.
Its are like golden cages within our soul.
Possible ideologies: Dogmatism, determinism, partly skepticism, libertinism.

a6 Disorder of Personal Bases and Levels

It uproots and levels P. It steals the actual basis of the person.

2. It twists and falsifies the personal base: what was peripheral becomes the base, and what was the original base becomes the new strange periphery. On the one hand, It uproots and undermines the personal basis and causes a displacement of P on the periphery. On the other hand, It establishes many new centers. The result is a confusion of center and periphery.

3. It also creates personal hyper-centers. The person has compensatory gains with such new strange personal centers.
Possible ideologies: fundamentalism, radicalism, extremism, eccentricity.
There is always a loss or disturbance of the primary personal center/base.
Also: All inversions cause more or less a loss of “height”/overview/meta-level/horizon.⁷⁴

About the Reversal of Causes (Problem Shifting)

The Its shift causes and problems. Then we don´t ask, for example, anymore for the real causes of our illnesses but only for secondary causes.
Further see `Causes and Results´ in Metapsychology.

a7: Disorder of the Person’s Independence and Ties

1. The Its cause the person to be dependent. They steal the person’s autonomy as well as good ties. Or
2. The Its inverse and alienate the personal autonomy and ties. Or
3. The Its form hyper-autonomous centers (keyword: “self-running”) and form new independent spheres.
The person has a substitute gain by this new strange autonomy – or P has the expensive advantage that he/she no autonomy must venture, no responsibility must take over.
Possible ideologies: determinism, evolutionism, philosophy of immanence.
In general, there will be a loss/ disorder of person´s autonomy and binding.

Changes of the Personal Differentiation Spheres

Main Differentiations

I. The Its Change the Personal Being

Main disorders:
    1. The Its destroy the personal being, or
    2. The Its cause a disorder, reversal or alienation of the personal being. They create new strange personal being. They change the personal being in their sense. Then the personal being is similar to the being of the Its.
    3. The Its create personal hyper-forms.

II. The Its Change the Person’s Life (Dynamics)

    1. The Its kill, or reduce life, or
    2. The Its disturb, twist and falsify our life. That life is similar to the life of the Its. They replace living with functioning and role behavior.
    3. The Its cause above all at the beginning hyper vitality, “hyper-life”, hyper-activities.
The person appears especially as an automat, machine, official, apparatchik, role player and life seems dead and dead things appear alive. ⁷⁵

III. The Its Change Personal Qualities

    1. The Its disqualify the person. The result is a loss of primary personal qualities.
    2. The Its change the qualities of the person, above all because they falsify these, twist and disturb.
    3. The Its can cause personal hyper-qualities – as a rule, linked with accordingly raised emotions.

Paradoxes due to reversal of Qualities

The sensations of various qualities of P² do not match the actual qualities. In this way, something negative can be perceived and handled positively and something positive negatively.
For example: Illness is better than health, the object-role is better than the subject-role, matter is more important than soul, things/objects are more important than people.

Two Kinds of Luck (and Misfortune) in Two Kinds of Realities

“First I make you happy,” says the ideal “but then I will kill you!”

In the first-rate reality, the “holy spirit” rules. In the second-rate realities, something that could be called “unholy substance” rules. The “holy spirit” is God1, is love. But what would be the “(un)holy substance” for which we often thirst more than for the Holy Spirit? These are our +Its, which are like drugs or symbionts in us, on which we depend because they give us something we think we absolutely need.
It is known that in certain moments of joy, endorphins and dopamine are released. These hormones can be compared to the substance we can receive from our Its.
What are the two types of happiness?
1. real happiness: has no cost, comparable to happiness through love.
2. strange ‘happiness’ such as libido, ecstasy, rush, high, flow and thrill is addictive and therefore has a cost.
This kind of happiness depends on various substances, situations or people. They promise “speed” and “power”, they give a “boost”. The dynamic is all or nothing, with a strongly increasing +² curve, which soon decreases and falls into the negative if no new “stuff” is given.
I believe that anything that is positively absolutized can cause addiction.
Especially the non-substance addictions are underestimated!
[I have often heard work addicts say that their work is their hobby and their pleasure. What could be wrong with that?]
Only the actual +A has no potential to be addicting and even gives heavenly luck.
P² can perceive happiness as misfortune or misfortune as happiness, as ‘black happiness’ (Victor Hugo) when the misfortune affects others.

Two Kinds of Misfortune:
In parallel, I am convinced that there are also two kinds of misfortune: the actual and the strange. By this I mean that we consider relative misfortune to be absolute misfortune when we are governed by a ‒sA / It.
An example would be the loss of the mentioned (pseudo-) absolute happiness. In itself, P¹ would not have to fear earthly misfortune.
The absolute misfortune is only the negative Absolute (‒A).

IV. The Its Change P as Subject and the Personal Connections

    1. The Its desubjectivize, which means that P loses his/her first-rate subject-role.
    The Its destroy or chain up personal connections.
    2. The Its inverse, alienate and disorder P in his/her role as subject: They turn P into an object. → Subject-object-reversal).
    P² appears as object. The Its make misconnections: Incoherent topics become coherent and vice versa.
    3. The Its create personal hyper-subjects and function as such. (Also: Its create hyper-objects).

The Subject-Object-Reversal

Here, an important characteristic of the It/sA, or the strange Self is represented. They now take the position of a quasi-personal, living subject and P/I on the other side, takes the position of an object – a situation that is typical for mental disorders.⁷⁶
This process can be referred to as subject-object-reversal because whatever is usually the object, became subject and whatever is usually the subject, became an object.⁷⁷ It is the (limited) ”victory” of the object over the subject, or the dictatorship of the objects. Who is actually acting, when someone says “I” am acting? Is it the I or is it an It?
The subject-object-reversal also causes a change of the characteristics of the new subject and the new object:
The original object does not become a “real” subject but a kind of subject, a second-rate subject. It plays the role of a subject but is not a real subject and can therefore be termed a “subjectoid” or “sobject” (meaning a pseudo-subject). Or the original object becomes a false object, a kind of “objectoid”. The same applies to the original subject, who can neither be a real subject nor a real object but becomes a second-class subject or object. Both are hermaphrodites.

As a rule, a second-rate subject (subjectoid) is an object of one’s own (or other people’s) ideals.
Such a second-rate subject can only see objects in other subjects and handles them as such.
A second-rate personal / ego is usually the object of his own (or other people’s) ideals.

Due to the subject-object-reversal, the original first-rate connection of subject-object is lost and a subject-object-splitting applies.
Besides the subject-object-splitting, there are subject-object-fusions, since the Its resp. strange-Selves cause splittings as well as fusions.
In relationships, the It mainly acts in the role of a (pseudo-)first-rate subject. That means that the It can directly cause processes, without P being able to influence it. In addition to dysfunctions, behavioral disorders are the result: behavior that is not (or only partially) influenced by P, so that the person feels powerless and controlled by extraneous power (especially in schizophrenia).
There is a parallel between subject-object splitting and God-world-splitting.

Disorder and Reversal of Bonding and Separation

“The It misconnects, replaces, separates.”
With that, there are disorders of connections/ relationships etc. on the one side, and separation, splitting etc. on the other side.
There are new, strange connections/ relationships. (E.g.,: there are new problems at places where they do not belong, solutions are brought up where there are no possible solutions etc.)

Loose relationships become welds, knots, chains: The Its creates connections that are too stiff and automatic in the form of processes, procedures, automatisms, etc. Examples: order and obedience; error and punishment; interpersonal: tit-for-tat, etc. There are also determinant connections that appear to be similar, such as the chain of associations described in psychoanalysis.
(Relative) separations, differences become absolute separations or unrelatedness.
Where there was connection/relationship, there is now separation. Where there was division and difference, there is now fusion. The associated symptoms play a major role in neurosis and psychosis (“madness”). The “atypical connectivity” in autism could also arise in this way.

Single Differentiations

In the following paragraphs, I want to discuss some single aspects more detailed.

Aspect 1: Personal Area of “All and Nothing”

    1. The Its destroy. There is a loss of first-rate personal all and nothing. (→ nihilism). It also isolates.
    2. The Its inverse and alienate everything that is personal.
    3. It can also totalize (generalize) P-parts. That means Its can create “hyper-everything”
    (→ relativism).
About 1: The It wants everything for itself. It wants the whole person. If the person refuses, the It threatens P with the nothing.
The It claims the right of exclusiveness. Motto: “Whoever is not with me, is against me.”
The all says to Ego: “You are super good or bad.” And the Nothing says: “You are a nothing if you are not all!”

Aspect 2: Worldview and View of God

    1. The Its profane. They negate and replace God¹and love. They cause a loss of transcendence, of God¹, love and sense.
C. G. Jung was convinced that the “loss of soul and sense” was the main problem of the modern world. According to him, about one-third of his clients were affected by the “pointlessness and lack of relevance of their life”.
    2. The Its of this aspect pervert and falsify transcendence (God¹) and immanence (the “world”). On the other hand, earthly, worldly matters are being idolized or demonized. It is the “Victory of immanence over transcendence.”
If we live in inverted roles or worlds, we are people without heaven, without transcendence, without God¹whose foundations are undermined, only because we trust the strange more than the real and have for it got false gods and false devils.
Such as the Subject-object-reversal , the God-world-reversal is not only connected to a negation and a change of God and world but also a God-world-splitting, or a God-world-fusion.
    3. The Its may also cause an excessive and one-sided transcendence and immanence (→ asA).

Aspect 3: The Person and the Things

The P-changes considering the three P²-areas in this aspect can be illustrated as follows:
    1. The Its depersonalize P. The result is a loss of first-rate personality.
    2. The Its inverse and alienate the person and the things. Therefore the things will dominate the person. “Victory of the things over the person”, KW: “factual constraint”.
    3. The Its may cause hyper-personal or hyper-things.

About the Person-Thing-Reversal

An original thing has been personalized, while the person has been depersonalized and reified.
Therefore, what was once a “thing” or “object” is now personal, and vice versa.
The person also feels like a thing (instrument, machine, puppet, etc.) and/or a strange person (represented by the dominant It) and/or a nobody.
The inversion leads to a mechanization of the person and a humanization of the machine = alienation of the original human / alienation of the original machine.
Like the subject-object inversion, the person-thing-inversion not only causes a negation and a change of person and thing and a person-thing-splitting, but it also causes a person-thing fusion. (See more about `Person-It-reversal´ and the Subject-object-reversal´).

The following single aspects are part of the Summary table and are only discussed briefly.
All Its change the personal aspects (as already described) in three basic kinds of ways:
    1. The Its negate the first-rate aspects.
    2. The Its falsify (~) the aspects.
    3. The Its cause specific hyper-forms.
The main effects of It are negation and falsification of the person.
Positive hyper-forms are especially found at the beginning of an inversion because they seduce the person.
One-dimensional It-effects are very rare. Most of the time, multiple, contradicting personal forms are created simultaneously.

Note
The partly named ideologies stand for many, often still more important unnamed individual or familial ideologies! Further ideologies can be found in the Summary Table column E.

Aspect 4: I and Others

Here one can find the Ego-other inversion: Due to an inversion, the Ego becomes like others and others become like me.
There is not only a negation and change of the Ego and the others, but also a split between the Ego and the others or the fusion of both. “Everyone is the other and nobody is himself”
(M. Heidegger)
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 4.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: egocentrism, individualism / collectivism / non- / conformism.

P becomes	loss and replacement
de-individualized misindividualized hyper-individualized	↓I, individuality/community → loss of I, loss of you ~ strange I ↑ Ego (Super- or Hyper-Ego)

Aspect 5: Spirit, Body, Mind

There is not only a negation and change of mind, soul and body, but also their reversal, division and fusion. For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 5.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: spiritism, psychologism, healthism, Materialism, idealism.

P becomes	loss and replacement
de-spiritualized, lifeless somatized, misinspirited ideologized	↓ spirit, body, mind → loss of spirit, body, mind ~ strange spirit, body, mind ↑ hyper-forms, ideologies

Aspect 6: Gender, Love, Sex

The Its in this aspect represent above all new foreign determining “genders” or gender roles.
The Its appear mainly castrating or sexisting. To be more precise: The It has a castrating and negligent effect or too masculinizing or too femininizing or too sexualizing. There is a loss of actual sexuality, love or sexuality. The person becomes too neutral, sterile, asexual or hypersexualized or too masculine, too feminine or too hermaphrodite. The resulting deficits are partly compensated by substitute sexuality or love, by inverted gender roles.
There is not only a negation and change of the mentioned aspects, but also their reversal, division and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 6.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: macho / feminism / sexism / women- / men- hostile or absolutizing ideologies. (As a side effect possible through most ideologies).

P becomes	loss and replacement
neutered feminized, masculinized sexualized	↓ sex, love, gender → without sex, without love ~ sex, love, gender e.g.,: spare-sex, spare-love ↑ hyper-forms (e.g.,: excessive sex)

Aspect 7: Emotions

P becomes	loss and replacement
unsatisfied numbed frightened doped	↓ conditions, emotions → apathy/insensibility, sorrow ~ compensatory-conditions, -emotions, inversed fear ↑ hyper-forms like thrill, kick etc.

The Its determine our feelings.
They forbid us to be happy without them. The It says, “Only with me, only when you have me, you can be happy.”
And we can’t just instantly and directly abolish the tyranny of the It and feel like we actually do are.
→ kicks, mini-manias also in everyday life and the opposite: depression, anxiety.’ There is not only a negation and change of feelings, but also a reversal and their division and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 7.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: hedonism, optimism / pessimism, materialism/ idealism esp. romanticism.

Aspect 8: Will

Here is also the problem of voluntariness.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms of will and motivations, but also a reversal of them and their splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 8.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: Voluntarism, partly Intentionalism / “no-go” ideologies, existential philosophies et al.

P becomes	loss and replacement
demotivated mis-motivated hyper-motivated	↓ will, voluntariness, goal → abulia/lack of will ~ mis-aspiration, false will, addiction ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: hyperbulia, also addictions

Aspect 9: Ownership

Patient: “I am overwhelmed and buried again and again and have to dig my way out every day.”
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms of ownership, but also their reversal, division and merger.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 9.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: capitalism, mercantilism, asceticism.
See also Erich Fromm: Being and having.

P becomes	loss and replacement
exploited indulged supersaturated	↓ ownership → lack, defaults ~ false owning ↑ hyper-forms: overloading, hyperphagia

Aspect 10: Power and Abilities

There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 10.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: imperialism, behaviorism, pacifism et al.

P becomes	loss and replacement
weakened, overwhelmed misconditioned hyper-, mis-exponentiated	↓ possibility, power → powerlessness, weakness ~ mis-conditioning, false ability ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: “omnipotence”

Aspect 11 Order, Necessity

It is not only the negation and change of the various forms, but also to their reversal, splitting and merging.
P² must maintain + fA and avoid −fA and nothing.
If P² does not achieve this goal, she will have to work harder until she collapses.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 11.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: dogmatism, bureaucratism, technocracy / anarchism.

P becomes	loss and replacement
disordered disorganized forced, compelled	↓ order, law → disorder, chaos ~ false order, laws, necessities ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: determination, being fixed

Aspect 12: Obligations, Orientation

P becomes	loss and replacement
disorientated, distracted ; mis-regulated, manipulated tempted	↓ direction → lack of direction ~ mis-direction ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: moralism

At present, a ‘great distraction’ through a wide variety of media plays a special role.
Result: loss of orientation, overview, and disorientation; Or: one-sided, fixed orientations.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 12.The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: moralism (“duty men”), legalism / anti-moralism et al..

Aspect 13: Rights, Allowances

P becomes	loss and replacement
blocked, inhibited mis-regulated, -controlled un-/ hypercontrolled	↓ rights, control, freedom → loss of control, inhibition ~ compensatory-freedom/ -control ↑ hyper-forms: hyper-freedom, hyper-control

The resp. It inhibits, constricts / disengages, excessively exaggerates, does not regulate, it fails, also seduces, turns in circles.
P² becomes uninhibited, uncontrolled / disenfranchised, restricted, inflexible, uptight, over-controlled.
External and internal totalitarian systems also create unlawful spaces.
External systems: if, for example, someone in a totalitarian system opposed its ideology, he entered a lawless room, that is, he became disenfranchised.
Inwardly / intrapersonally: if P² violates a sA / super-ego, then she no longer has the right to mercy and the also unreasonable punishment follows.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 13.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes into question: liberalism, laissez-faire views / restrictive ideologies. ~ Lenin: “Trust is good, control is better.”

Aspect 14: Creativity

There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 14.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: creationism / materialism, positivism.

See, for example, the excellent description of the loss of creativity by Peter M Rojcewicz ⁷⁸

P becomes	loss and replacement
sterilized falsely caused overgrown	↓ creativity → lack of creativity e.g.,: stereotypes ~ false creations, ghosts ↑ hyper-forms: over-productions, excrescences

Aspect 15: Actions/Behavior

P becomes	loss and replacement
paralyzed, inactivated mistreated over-activated	↓ success, experience → inactivity ~ false deeds, compensatory-behavior, affectation ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: hyper-activity, hyper-kinesis

KW: Damned to be successful. Example: P² in the hamster wheel.

Here also: disturbed interplay of activity and passivity, work and rest or reversal of activity and passivity or of active and passive. Why? The sA do not let you calm down or paralyze you.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 15.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes: activism, utilitarianism, pragmatism /partly consumism, hedonism, coolness.

Aspect 16: Information

Disorder of information processing and emergence.

P becomes	loss and replacement
not informed misinformed, lied to too sophisticated, precocious	↓ Information, certainty → defective vision ~ false information ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: isolated knowledge, one-sided information

If the It experiences no resistance or is not corrected, it transmits its information to the carrier. There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their splitting, fusion, and reversal.
Thus, for example, according to the “law of the formation of opposites”, an absolutized rationality (including scientificity *) will generate irrationality. Being overwhelmed with information (hyperinformation) currently plays a major role. Result: counter-regulation with a call for the great simplifiers.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 16.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: rationalism, scientism, gnosticism / skepticism, anti-rationalism.

Aspect 17: Presentation, Expressions

P becomes	loss and replacement
suppressed, masked deceived too exposed	↓ expression, openness → mutism, reticence ~ false expressions, e.g.,: language, travesties, enemy images ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: hyper-mime

There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 17.The main causes are following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: exhibitionism, occultism, esotericism et al.

Aspect 18: Meanings, Relevance

P becomes	loss and replacement
neglected misinterpreted despised overrated	↓ Meanings, values dignity → loss of them ~ disorder of self-esteem ↑ hyper-forms: e.g.,: overvalue, delusion

There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 18.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes: Elitist thinking and behavior, society with wrong values (e.g. code of honor) / without values, egalitarianism et al.

Aspect 19: Past

‘So we beat on, boats against the current, but it drives us steadily back, towards the past.’
(Adapted from Scott Fitzgerald)

P becomes	loss and replacement
infantilized mismarked conventionalized	↓ past → lack of experience, immaturity ~ false memories, false past ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: isolated memories, hypermnesia

The Its can act like `sleepers´ that are resting for decades until they become active all of a sudden.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 19.
Possible ideologies: conservatism, empiricism, traditionalism, also modernism.

Aspect 20: Present, Time

“Anyone who marries the zeitgeist will soon be a widower!” (Søren Kierkegaard)

P becomes	loss and replacement
put off falsely calmed down rushed	↓ Time, calmness → loss of time, of calmness, of peace ~ false dealing / conceiving with time and present ↑ hyper-forms: compulsion, harassment

There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
Example: “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone …There is nothing more unbearable for a human being than being in complete calmness, without distractions, business and tasks. Then the person can feel the nothingness, the forlornness, the dependence, the powerlessness, the emptiness.”( (Blaise Pascal) ⁷⁹
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 20.
Possible ideologies: Carpe-Diem-Ideology, modernism, actualism et al.

Aspect 21: Future

P becomes	loss and replacement
unprepared mis-prepared “utopianized”	↓ perspective → hopelessness ~ fear of future ↑ hyper-forms: Utopia

There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
E.g., self-fulfilling prophecy, progress trap.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 21.
Possible ideologies: Utopianism, progressivism /apocalypse, fatalistic ideologies.

Aspect 22: Mistake

P becomes	loss and replacement
uncorrected mis-corrected condemned, hyper-corrected	↓ correction, compensation → loss of corrections/compensations ~ too much or false guilt ↑ hyper-forms: hyper-correctness

There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion. For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 22. Possible ideologies: Perfectionism, aestheticism, also: Laissez-faire-ideologies.

Aspect 23: Protection, Defense

It is	P becomes	loss and replacement
aggressive, sadistic falsely protecting pacifistic, masochistic	unprotected traumatized, threatened armored	↓ protection, peace → loss of protection, vulnerability ~ many defense mechanisms ↑ hyper-forms: armoring

Possible ideologies: pacifism/militarism.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 23.
The disorder or weakness of the personal defense is one of the main topics in psycho-analysis.
Due to (almost) all Its, the defense becomes either
        a) weakened or broken off or
        b) alienated, displaced, distorted or
        c) exaggerated such as an armor/ hardening.
Those disorders of defense happen in parts, where P does not experience unconditional love and acceptance. P will feel threatened by any person or situation that questions his sA because he has identified with this sA. Therefore P would take it personally if anything questions his sA. Further explanations see in the segment ‘Defense and anticathexis´ later.

Illustration of a Single Second-Rate Personal Part (P²)

If (for example) there is a person, such as the father, who becomes absolute for me, then there will be a new It within me, that is made up as follows:
In the center there is the It “father”, symbolized by the Yin-Yang ☯ * – split into +sS on top [sS = strange Self] and repressed ‒sS below; both with their inverse sides. (0 part is not shown]. That It has its own territory, that has been created like a new strange system around the center “father”. Therefore, we have a new strange Absolute resp. Self, surrounded by areas that are subordinated. We have already found that a new Absolute/ Self affects more or less all aspects of its sphere.
Especially those who are closest to “father” will be affected. On the other hand, any other differentiation aspect would also have to resonate. This means that whenever this It is activated, it is always about “Father” or the image of Father within me, but also about all the other related aspects. On the other hand, this means that it is also about the past, present, future, gender, meanings, information, and so on – ultimately about everything that was represented by “Father. In other words: All aspects dominated by It will be changed to a greater or lesser extent. Especially those aspects that are most similar to It will be changed the most.
But there will also be the aforementioned repressed -sS: repressed antipathy towards the Father (because one’s own Self is neglected)!
*In my opinion, the yin-yang symbol in the center represents the characteristics of sS/It very well.

Which Its Cause What and How?

• All Its do not only change our being but along with that they also change our worldview and the way we experience the world.
The person becomes primarily like his/her It/sA and is only secondarily itself. ⁸⁰
They change P according to the all-or-nothing-principle, black-or-white, pro-or-contra, + or ‒.
We saw that +sA, ‒sA and 0 are three parts of the same “thing”, the It. In the beginning, it mostly changes the person towards the strange positive. That means that the person feels subjectively very well, identical, strong, competent and so on, without actually being it.
At the same time, the person is increasingly frightened and threatened by the contrary ‒It/sA, without there being a threat that is actually so bad.
• The +It (resp. the +sA part) may give the person an absolutely positive feeling:
A feeling of absoluteness, self-awareness, self-confidence, total love, a feeling of an actual positive being and life, a sense of purpose, a feeling of power, a feeling of ego-strength, freedom, wealth, health, eternity, a feeling of precise orientation, a clear differentiation between good and evil, a precise knowledge of morals and values, a precise differentiation of who is a friend and who is an enemy, and so on – all to an extent that does not correspond to reality, but we would like to live with it. The +Its promise us what we long for in the depths of our soul without actually keeping the promise. They change our personality so that we see everything in their light, act in their name to get what they promise. But they deceive us and we have to pay a price. On the other hand, they do not deceive us completely. This is because they are neither absolutely positive nor absolutely negative, but ambivalent.
• The ‒Its (resp. the ‒sA parts) threaten us with what we fear the most. This is usually the opposite of the +It promises. They threaten us with death, sickness, powerlessness, loneliness, poverty, withdrawal of love, enmity – without any corresponding reason. They present themselves as unbeatable enemies, as devils, as A. They also change our personality so that we become anxious, overcautious, fearful, and so on. Again, we have to pay a high price, and the higher the -, the higher the price. But they help us against the disadvantages of +Its.
• The 0 Its (resp. the 0 parts), that appear to be like an empty face compared to the other two It-parts, negate the personal aspects.
Or they create a contrary false All/ everything. But they help us in the form of repression.

We already realized that all Its have three parts and therefore act in many different (contradicting) ways.
• Whenever contradicting Its are developed, they confuse us because they tend to be paradoxical, divisive and cause double binds. The person is confronted with very different and contradictory information and signals given by the same It (person, situation). If we look at the arguments of two opposing P² (or their It) from a second-order perspective (from W²’s point of view), both are right in their arguments. This fact is at the root of many conflicts, such as those in marriage. Every marriage counselor can tell stories about how frustrating a discussion can be in this case – especially because both sides are right – but they are only relatively right, because most of the time the higher, first-rate view is missing: the view that allows the person to understand the other person’s position.
Examples for contradicting It-effects:
        Helpers* cause hyper-help or helplessness or indifference.
        Moralists* cause hyper-morality or immorality or indifference.
        Right-wing extremists* cause more right-wing extremists
                or left-wing extremists or indifferent people.
        Asceticism* causes more asceticism or gluttony or indifference.
        Altruism* causes/supports new exaggerated altruism or egoism or indifference.
        Self-centeredness* causes/supports new selfishness
                or altruism or indifference.
        Truth-fanaticism* causes new exaggerated truth-fanaticism
                or lies or indifference etc. ⁸¹

Fig. The main effects of three opposing Its and their parts on the person.
(Dashed lines represent opposite effects, solid lines represent equal effects.).
P is a cue ball of various It effects. The Its are each other´s enemies or friends but they stick together against P and ultimately exploit P. Method: carrot and stick.
The ‒sA (right), for example, makes P much afraid and drives P into the arms of his opponent, the + sA (left).
This appears as a savior because it is the opposite of the ‒sA. P jumps out of the frying pan into the fire and must bleed everywhere.
For more remarks, see: ‘Overview of all It- valences‘ and `It-parts, opposites´..

Strange-I (Ego)

Synonyms of strange I: Ego, second-rate I, I².

The explanation refers to the strange I, as well as the strange you (you²) and the strange we.
In the following paragraphs I will briefly discuss the emergence of the I² under the influence of the I/sA. The effects of I/sA on the ego are the same as those on the person (as discussed above). If we transfer the given main effects to the ego, we get the following picture::⁸²

P causes a misabsolutization or takes one from outside (mostly unconsciously). Thus something becomes all or nothing, pro or contra, positive or negative in the absolute understanding. These parts create a strange I (ego), but also a counter-strange I (anti-ego) and a non-I. This process, which at first took place only on the mental-spiritual plane, is then “materialized”, that is, into something material as an I. Now the ego is dominated by the It, and therefore the ego becomes more like the It – while the It becomes more like the ego. As I said, this process is usually unconscious, because strange absolutes or strange selves have usually already established themselves in childhood or, I believe, even prenatally – and we are identified with them and they dominate and change us and generate strange ego spheres in us. Fortunately, those changes are only partial, which is an important fact for therapy. As mentioned multiple times before, it is also important to know that the strange Selves and their Egos are not solely negative but that they also have positive parts. They are more or less ambivalent, paradoxical and illogical. They are the main components of various mental disorders.

The Structure of the Strange-I (Ego)

Notes
Here more about the used → Classification
For a change, I use `Ego´ or I² for the strange I.
(² means second-rate).

        • Hyper-Ego = Ego, dominated by pro,+ sA. ⁸³
        • Anti-Ego = Ego, dominated by contra, ‒ sA.
        • Non-Ego (Non-I) = Ego, dominated by nothingness.

‘Ego’ means strange-I (I²). ‘Ego’ does not indicate an egoistic person but a person whose I is controlled by an It/sA and therefore lives in an unfavorable situation – especially under the pressure of being in charge of everything and not being able to rest. That I² is constantly switching positions between the three parts of the It ( , ‒, 0), what I also call `imprisoned in the psychical Bermuda Triangle´. ⁸⁴
However, it has only a relative role for the first-rate I-self..

Summary of the Personal Changes

With the establishment of strange Selves resp. Its, something becomes too absolute (absolutistic) and the person becomes relative or irrelevant; something becomes too unconditional and the person only conditional; something becomes too primary, too important and the person too secondary, too unimportant; something becomes too independent and the person becomes dependent; something becomes the center and the person becomes a minor role; something becomes a subject and the person its object; something controls the person and the person does not control something anymore; something becomes too real and the person is no longer real; something strange becomes personal and what is actually personal becomes material, less personal, dehumanized, dividable; something lifeless becomes alive and the affected person becomes lifeless, an object is humanized and the person becomes an object.
One can also formulate: This is a “victory of the Relative over the Absolute”, a “victory of matter over spirit”, “victory of objects over subjects”, “victory of things over the person”, “victory of the strange over the Self ”, “victory of the splitting over the unity”, “victory of dependence over independence”, “victory of It over I”. (Fortunately, the “victories” are only partially and temporary.)

Attentive readers have probably already noticed that some of the changes mentioned represent basic patterns of schizophrenia. In particular: The priority of the person over the objects is lost. This means that many people did not grow up as subjects, as unique individuals, but as objects that have to fulfill certain tasks and roles. Fortunately, the inversion of person and It is only relatively, even if the person experiences it as absolute. ⁸⁵ Specifically, this means that the person is never completely transformed into an object or a function (of an It). Conversely, the internalized strange Absolute (or It) never fully becomes the person, subject, or truly alive. There will always be “healthy parts” within us that are very strong, no matter how sick or manipulated we are. Why this is so is a philosophical or religious question. We will return to this question later.

The Juxtaposition of Different Realities

“How real is reality?” (Paul Watzlawick)
“The reality we can put into words is never reality itself …” (Werner Heisenberg)

It is normal for our world that there are many, very different and contradictory realities. This also applies to the person and the psyche, although we usually expect that there is only one will, one way of thinking, one feeling (and so on) for a particular person regarding a particular issue.
This juxtaposition of different, very different realities has always been of great interest to mankind. ⁸⁶
– As an example, the doctrine of the two kingdoms by Luther.
– Kierkegaard posited the human being to be a synthesis of opposing elements, of “the infinite
and the finite, and the temporal and eternal, of freedom and necessity”. ⁸⁷
– Boris Pasternak: “Everything that happens takes place, not only on earth, in which the dead are buried but somewhere else, that some call the Kingdom of God¹, others history, and still others something else again.” ⁸⁸
As stated several times, I distinguish between a first-rate and many second-rate realities. Typical of the second-rate realities is the juxtaposition of opposites, which are experienced as incompatible. Overall, WPI ⁸⁹ does not consist of purely first-rate or purely second-rate realities but a mixture of both. Both forms of reality are relatively opposite. There is only an absolute opposite between +A and ‒A.
Therefore it is normal that a person experiences him-/herself and the existent reality as relatively strange.

W. Blankenburg called the “loss of natural self-evidence” a sign of schizophrenia (1971), but this concerns all of us, since we have lost paradise, not just “schizophrenics”. As a sign of schizophrenia, one can only identify a predominant loss of natural self-evidence (corresponding to a predominant loss of the first-rate Self in the sense of this work)..⁹⁰

It would not be normal for a person to experience reality as only one actual reality, because our world, as well as people, are also “built” in strange structures. In this sense, there are double worlds or plural worlds.
This applies to both personal and non-personal realities/worlds: e.g. two (or more) different beings, two kinds of life, two fortunes, two misfortunes, two different contexts, etc., which, as said, are not completely separate. ⁹¹ Unambiguous are only +A and ‒A, although that is not provable. Everything else is relatively exact-inexact; only describable relatively, relationally or comparatively.
(About the juxtaposition of opposite sA/It and their dynamic see Double-Bind Theory.)

Comparison of First-Rate Reality (W¹) and Second-Rate Realities (W²)

Note: The following characterization of the second-rate realities is ideal-typical, for these W² are always permeated by more or less 1st reality.⁹²

There are only the most important aspects presented in the following listing:

The second-rate realities are strange, not actual and more unrealistic than W¹.
W¹ is the realistic, actual reality. The first positive world can also be called heaven, and the first negative world can be called hell.
The second-rate worlds are intermediate worlds. They touch heaven on one side and hell on the other.
W² is complicated, divided and also too homogeneous.
W¹ is more of an infinitely diverse whole.
The worlds of the second rate have three divided main dimensions: +, –, and 0, or pro, contra, and zero.
The +first world has only one determined main dimension, the +A¹.
The R-parts in W² must work. Otherwise they are replaced immediately.
The first world is undivided and integrates its relative sphere, which is also undivided but varied. R is not replaced if it does not work. It is integrated and protected in a larger wholeness.
In W² everything has multiple meanings, is multicausal and so on.
Only the first reality is definite, unambiguous and unicausal in the end. ⁹³
In W² there is dependence, while W¹ is determined by freedom.
The It/sA of the second realities are mainly disturbing and negative.
The +A of the first reality can sometimes be experienced as negative, but always follows a positive goal.
The second realities are each other’s enemies or false friends or do not care.
In the first reality, the elements are friendly to each other, although they can be critical.
In the second realities, things and functionalities dominate.
The first reality is dominated by a living and voluntary spirit, also called the Holy Spirit.
In the second realities there is a lot of fear, jealousy and competition. They can be compared to armies where orders are given that must be obeyed or there will be punishment.
In the first reality, love rules. There are no orders, only orientation. It is not structured in a strict or hierarchical way.
The second realities work mostly like machines. Laws and rules are common, comparable to those in physics/mechanics (or there is chaos).
The priority of the first reality is freedom, personality and creativity.
The second realities are opposed to the first and cannot integrate it.
The first reality can integrate the second realities and tries to correct them without fighting them. The Divine permeates all mundane things (except the -A) without being identical with them. For example, Jesus went to the farthest corner of the world (W²) without being equal to it.
W² needs “food” and supplies because its sA are hungry. The sA, as centers of WPI², always want to have/receive. They are pseudo-autonomous but also hyper-dependent.
+A (God1, love) also gives without being asked and is autonomous. W¹ is saturated.
W² has reversed sides. W¹ has no reversed sides.
A symbol of the second worlds is the ellipse to indicate unroundness. The yin-yang symbol indicates a yet balanced center of the second realities.
The first world can be symbolized with a circle or a sphere. There are fluent lines and every point on the sphere is a center. There is no front and no back.
The dynamics in W² are determined by strange Absolutes (sA). Those Absolutes tend to create short-term highs in the beginning, followed by long-term lows.
The dynamics in W¹ are determined by +A. On transition to W¹, there is often a short down in the beginning, which usually cause some resistance, followed by a stable positive phase.
In W² there are only a few nuances, small ranges. Everything is determined by the all-or-nothing-principle.
In W¹, there is a coexistence of the relative-parts. There are a large number of nuances.
W¹ integrates all relative-parts, also the sA.

An overview of the nature of second-rate realities can be found in Summary table in column N.
For simplicity I write sometimes instead of first-rate only first or ¹, and instead of second-rate only second or ².

The first-rate reality, which ranges from +A to ‒A, represents a continuum with countless nuances.

The relative-area in W² between a +sA and a ‒sA however, shows no continuum but only black and white, resp. all-or-nothing parts.

About Terms and Language of Second-Rate Worlds

Atheistic worldviews mainly describe second-rate worlds. For example: Freud, Marx, Darwin, Buddhism, even some humanistic ideologies. They mainly describe the world as materialistic, mechanical, dialectical, or dualistic and deterministic. The emphasis is on on relativism or absolutism. They no longer see the transcendent, the mysterious, the wonderful, the creative, the immeasurable, the spiritual, because it is not directly graspable and not provable. Max Weber called this the “demystification of the modern world.
Examples: Psychoanalysis understands the characteristics of a person only as the existence of second-rate realities or second-rate personal aspects. Freud’s three main instances (ego, super-ego, and id) are instances of an alienated or sick person. They are defined accordingly. S. Freud typically uses many mechanical terms such as the “psychic apparatus” and the human being as an “object”.
Other authors who use this “language of second-rate realities” are – as mentioned above – Marx (“Man is a product of social circumstances”) and other materialists or behavioral therapists who view the person mainly from the aspect of the stimulus-response model.
The language and concepts of first-order reality are adequate and clear. However, as I have said, our world does not consist only of first-rate reality and therefore cannot be definitively defined.

How Do I Recognize Second-Rate Realities?

Usually, second-rate realities can be recognized by absolute obligations (`musts’), which give us humans a temporary sense of orientation and security, but overtax us in the long run. These obligations are usually caused by sAs who control and coerce us. Are not most tragedies based on the feeling of such obligations, the feeling that we must do a certain thing, which leads us to radicalization, absolutizing and greed? It can also be compared to a kind of blackmail, as in: “You must do this or I will take away your +sA and replace it with a -sA.” Relative problems are then taken personally. Especially in conflicts or wars, everything becomes extreme, which makes the sA visible.
There is a certain point where it is always all or nothing, pro or con. At this point, desertion is hardly possible for the person. The person has no choice. The situation of a mentally ill person is similar.

“Advantages” of Second-Rate Realities due to Strange Selves

– The strange Self (sS) can replace the Self in a certain kind and we seem to have direct access
to that.
– A strange Self can cause +hyper-effects, even if one must pay a very high price for that.
– A strange Self promises an absolute power of control over the world, other people and the
Absolute.
– With a strange Self, the disadvantages of another strange Self can be balanced.

“Disadvantages” of the First-Rate Reality due to the Actual Self

In contrast to the advantages of the strange Selves, the “disadvantages” of the actual Self are listed here:
Although the first-rate reality includes a +Self at no cost, it also means this:
– The Self cannot be increased any further, otherwise it becomes an inflated strange Self.
– Except for the possibility of actively choosing such a Self, one has no other kind of control over the Self, because it controls itself. The Self seems to be controllable even though it is not.
– The unconditional right of self-determination that is part of the Self also includes self-responsibility. We like the first, the second is reluctant.
– All people have this actual self if they choose to have it. This means that no person has the right to place themselves above another person.
– The Self is part of transcendence, God¹, and ultimate subjects like death. We like to suppress that. – We also have to get rid of the idea that good deeds necessarily have good consequences and bad deeds necessarily have bad consequences.

Inverted, Paradoxical World

All of us, healthy or ill, live in inverted inner and outer worlds full of paradoxes.
The wife of the Russian writer Leo Tolstoy wrote in her diary on October 25, 1886:
“It sounds strange, but the last two months, when Lev Nikolayevich was ill, were the last happy time for me. I was fortunate enough to be able to care for him day and night, to have a task whose importance could not be doubted, the only one I could sacrifice myself for my beloved. The more burdened I felt, the happier I was”. ⁹⁴
But that kind of luck could only be temporary and finally made room for depression and hate. The more Tolstoy’s wife sacrificed for him, the more she had to hate him, because that kind of love bled her dry. This hateful love accompanied her throughout her life. When he was ill, she could be happy for two reasons:
First, because she could fulfill her ideal of self-sacrifice. Second, because her aggressive feelings toward him were satisfied by his illness.
Like Goethe, Hölderlin lamented how difficult it is to endure happiness.
The apostle Paul writes that he acted badly although he did not want to.
L. Völker published a book called “Come, holy melancholy” with poems by various poets describing the benefits of sadness and depression. ⁹⁵

The contradiction of preferring the negative to the positive appears in many different variations. They range from everyday paradoxes and contradictions to severe self-torture and self-destruction that still seem positive. They always seem mysterious and shocking, fascinating and frightening at the same time. Although we have promised to do better next time, we repeat our wrong behavior because of these strange inner forces.
Why do we choose the negative over the positive?
Why do we destroy what we love or love what we hate?
Why do we sometimes do the opposite of what we want to do?
How can there be opposite feelings at the same time?
Why do some people love others who exploit and humiliate them?
Why does a woman remarry a drunkard when the first marriage was a martyrdom?
Why do we seek problems instead of being happy that there are no problems at the moment?
Why do we seek misfortune and fear happiness?
Why do people want to be sick instead of healthy, dead instead of alive, dependent instead of independent?
How can we understand that people feel pleasure when they are beaten?
Why are there people who cling to a madness that is obviously absurd?
Hundreds of such questions could be asked. In the depths they question our whole self, our absolutes, and can only be answered there.
A short answer: If the +A or the Self has priority over the relative, then there are no such contradictions. There can only be relative contradictions that are resolved in the larger context of the +A/Self. However, when the relative replaces the absolute or the Self, an inverted and more or less paradoxical world is created. Positive things like health become negative, and negative things like illness become positive, and so on.

The Same in Different Second-Rate Systems (WPI²)

One finds the same phenomena in the second-rate general sphere and the second-rate personal sphere (P²).
Here and there we find similarities: external and internal oppression, coercion, persecution, external and internal imprisonment, dictatorship here and depression there, and so on.
The difference is that P² is his own perpetrator and victim at the same time. Commanding voices and all the other totalitarian characteristics can be found in the person as well as in a certain outside world. Many patients have adapted such totalitarian instances from their environment.
There is also a parallel between the thoughts of a mentally ill person and the language of a totalitarian system, as described by Victor Klemperer in his book “LTI”.

DYNAMICS OF STRANGE REALITIES

General Dynamics

Principles

The first and the strange, second-rate realities (WPI¹ / WPI²) have very different dynamics.⁹⁶The dynamics of WPI¹ or WPI² are determined by their Absolutes.
The structures and dynamics of WPI¹ are clear and unique.
The structures and dynamics of WPI² are ambiguous. WPI² has two main dynamics and two main outcomes: all² or nothing². If we differentiate all² again, we have three main dynamics with three main results: (all) pro² / (all) contra² and 0².
Thus, in the second-rate dynamics we find 1. the reinforcement (amplification), 2. the opposite, contradictory dynamics (similar to Newton’s third law: action = reaction) and 3. “0-dynamics” (standstill).
Pro-, Contra- and 0-dynamics can abruptly change to the opposite (→ Reversal into the opposite´) or “mix” (Similar “drive mix” by S. Freud).
This dynamic can be found in both social and individual processes. The paradoxical nature of Its allows multiple systems to sometimes confront each other as enemies, sometimes cooperate, and in a third case, cancel each other out.

Autonomous Phases of the It (Timing)

It/sA⁹⁷ are (partly) autopoietic systems and have their own lives (such as parasites). They tend to decay. Alone, they have only a temporary existence. They need a constant supply from the host to stay alive.
They are based on the principle of all or nothing. If they cannot be all, they will not function. At first, they try to be all that is best for the host (system, human) in order to seduce it into living off them. This lasts only as long as the host plays along. But the host (usually us humans) believes that it cannot survive without the Its/sA – since they are its highest priority. But in reality¹ the Its are more dependent on the host/human than the human is on the Its.
Unfortunately, if the host system stops “feeding” an It/sA or frees itself from the It/sA, the It/sA is not automatically dead. Since its survival has priority, every It/sA sacrifices its own Relatives, its own “people”, ruthlessly like a dictator. The own “people” even sacrifice themselves for the It/sA, since it is their Absolute.
These mechanisms can appear in a society or in an individual.
More details can be found in: Symbiosis and parasitism between It and P² .

Interactions in W²

Note: W² stands for second-rate world resp. reality.

General Principles

Like second-rate dynamics in general, the interactions in W² are determined by their strange Absolutes (sA and Its, respectively).
The +A is always effective in the W², even if it does not dominate. The +A and its +R¹ are in relative opposition to the sA/It, so that, as in the W² itself, a latent long-term conflict (with continuous stress) is created. Therefore, a “revolt” of the Relatives against their oppressive Absolutes can occur at any time. Examples: rebellion of the oppressed against their oppressors (e.g. revolutions), rebellion of the masses against the elites, rebellion of the truth against the lies, etc. (psychologically as well as socially).
Different sA/ Its and their systems have the same, opposite or 0 direction of action and can reinforce, fight or cancel each other.
Larger complexes arise when two or more It’s are connected.
They usually appear as pacts, enmities or indifferent complexes.
They are rigid, but can quickly turn into the opposite. (→ Reversal into the opposite´)
The interaction of the It/sA and the maintenance of their balance always requires sacrifices.

Overview of Possible Interactions in W²

Similar to the interaction possibilities between different It (→ It-parts, opposites, fusions and negations) all possible interactions between 2 W² resp. different systems² are shown in the following graphic.
(Here I only give an overview, which I discuss in more detail regarding personal interactions in the section “Complex Personal Dynamics and Relationship Disorders “ as well as in the unabridged version.)

The figure shows the interaction-possibilities between two It-dominated W² units. Each of the W² has 3 parts with 3 sides (here represented by 3 triangles with 3 different connotations, see `It as nine-sided triad´).
On the left, there are two opposing W², the valences of which are interlocked like gears and on the right two W², whose valences are commutated. In both cases, the two W² can form a pact, or opposites or annulments will arise as soon as the connotation of a part changes.

W² can be anything psychical relevant, determined by an It.
These can be certain ‘worlds’, persons, I (WPI) or parts of them.

As I said, I will discuss personal interactions later. However, I believe that interactions in larger systems follow the same principles.
For example: Within certain societies, certain ideologies will complement and reinforce each other, or they may be in opposition to each other. This creates pacts/alliances as well as hostilities/conflicts or both side by side in equilibrium, depending on how each part is connoted. They are rigid and unstable at the same time, and can form new constellations at any time, or even turn into their opposite.

Example: Interplay of opposing sA as ideologies.

Using this symbolic image, imagine how different ideologies can interfere with each other. For example, when the disadvantages of one ideological trend (in this case, an absolutistic ideology) ⁹⁸ become more and more pronounced, they automatically create a counter-trend, which then determines the zeitgeist, a society, and individuals.
(See also Reversal into the opposite´.)

Philosophical/ideological trends change. Often the opposite happens. Deficits of old views become more and more obvious and are compensated by opposing views or replaced by co-forms. (Ideology * → co- or counter-ideologies).
Absolutisms are followed by relativistic and/or nihilistic currents, and when these are exhausted, they are replaced by new opposing currents. Concrete example: Zarism → nihilism and anarchy → collectivism → new autocracy.
Since all ideologies and philosophies are flawed, the game is endless. This is why whole societies as well as individuals perish.

Emergence of Complexes by Different Its and Their Systems

In this publication, I distinguish:
– One It = simplest complex.
– Double or multiple complexes consisting of two or more Its. ⁹⁹
– Hypercomplexes networks consisting of many Its.

To the location:
– Complexes within a person.
– Interpersonal complexes = “relationship-complexes” (See also ‘Relationship disorders ‘).
– Social complexes.

I think that the structures of different complexes are similar, although their contents are very different. That is, individual or interpersonal (family, social) complexes are similar.
C. G. Jung, like me, understood “complex” to be a “group of largely repressed ideas which are connected as a coherent whole and which influence the thinking, feeling and acting of the individual by eliminating conscious control. ¹⁰⁰
Based on the idea of this publication, one can say: All its can form such complexes with each other. They then lead to the consequences described by C.G. Jung and others.
Whenever personal (or other) Its and their systems react with each other, the following complexes can be formed:
    • complex pacts (Syn.: symbioses, collusions, mergers, fusions) – with connections (bonds)
    that are too tight,
    • complex opponents (Syn.: enmities, collisions) – with splits (divisions),
    • neutral complexes (Syn.: 0-complexes or liquidations) – with dissolution or repression
    of connections/bonds,
    • mixed complexes.

Other Complexes and Similarities

In the unabridged German version you can find more details about the complexes of other specialties because there are further similarities with psychical complexes: e.g., with chemical complexes, chaos theory, analogies in physics.

Characteristics of Psychical Relevant (pr) Complexes

The pr complexes either have a rigid hierarchical structure or appear chaotic.

Here examples for pacts:

Its, or complexes, that are organized as pacts (have vectors with the same direction) stick together such as chains, which also explains certain chain-reactions and domino-effects in the second-rate realities.

Notes about the Transference

Transfers are made by the It/sA. Transfers can occur from any pr unit to any other pr unit. Example: Transference from W² to P², from P² to another P², or into P.
As in psychoanalysis, a distinction can be made between positive and negative transference. Relative transferences (= influences) must be considered separately.

Two illustrations that show different aspects of transference.

Summary
We can find regarding the complexes:
    • Self-organization/ autopoiesis.
    • Processes: From order to chaos and from chaos to order.
    • Relativization of the principle of causality “Equal causes cause equal effects.”
    • Low or fixed predictability.
    • Interior and exterior interactions.
   • A complex is never completely satisfied. There is always a tendency to expand at the
    expense of others, or it is “gorged” by others.
    • Complex-phases are just like It-phases.

Personal Dynamics

Simple Personal Dynamics

Introduction

This chapter assumes that you have read the previous sections. However, I will try to repeat the most important things. This is now about the personal dynamics of the second-rate parts of persons, which I have called P² or just P. ¹⁰¹
The It has become part of the person, although it is at the same time something alien to the person. This makes it difficult to understand the dynamic. The person can identify with the It and function as its It as well as be an opponent of the It as something strange. To be precise, P² does both: P² is always more or less identified with It or confronts It as an opponent. P² never has a clear identity. P² can never find peace within itself, because the It or the complex that determines P² does not rest either. It is unstable. It has to make sure that the inner forces are under control and that it constantly receives new input (“food”) from the outside in order to stay alive.

Comparison of First- and Second-Rate Personal Dynamics

General characteristics of the P²-dynamics: They are more inadequate, heteronomous, “shifted”, disordered, unconscious, passive, functional, automatic, artificial, contradicting and paradoxical compared with the first-rate dynamics.
Their directions are: too pro, too contra or too 0. (See “Summary table´ column Q).
Instead of free life, P is now dominated by strange processes. As long as the person is dominated by the It,
P has to do whatever It decides. P must act, think, realize, function as It wants. Although P still has some choice,
P cannot immediately destroy It by an act of will because It has been materialized.
The “primary processes” (Freud) are similar to second-rate dynamics.
First-rate dynamics are clear and unambiguous.
No person exhibits only first-rate behavior, because no person can behave in an absolutely definite and unambiguous way. There are always P² parts that also influence the behavior.

P between +A and sA

P stands between the advantages and disadvantages of the +A and the +sA.
Short to advantages of +sA: Emergence of + hyperforms. P gets +* . (E.g., see Summary table column N, line ↑)
Disadvantages see last section. → P reacts with defense mechanisms.
Advantages of +A: + `Meta-help´ (redemption, salvation, etc.). Disadvantage: no + hyperforms, withdrawal. → P reacts with Resistance.
Therapeutically important: The +A does not leave P alone when disturbed by the sA.
F. Hölderlin: “Where there is danger, the saving also grows!”

Self-/Others Damaging Dynamics

Second-rate personal dynamics become harmful (to the person or others) in the long run.
P² dynamics to the outside are especially harmful to other people, P² dynamics within the person are especially harmful to the person himself. Of the latter, the dynamics in which P functions in the role of It are more harmful to the environment, and the “victim dynamics” are self-injurious, while addictions, defenses, and repression mechanisms do both.
Interaction with the It will be all the more costly to P the more alien and dissimilar the strange Absolute is to the actual Absolute being replaced.

Symbiosis and Parasitism between It and P²

In the beginning there is a symbiosis between +It and P. Both sides give and take. Metaphorically speaking: The Ps give their blood to the Its, and in return, the +Its give the P drugs and safety² against the -sA they have created. Both need each other. In reality, the Its depend on the P; the P depends on the It/sA only in a subjective way. (This fact is important for therapy).
Both are connected with a kind of hate-love. They “love” each other with “libido” as long as they give each other what the other needs. P² needs It as a compensating Absolute, because P² does not live from the actual Absolute. At the same time, It needs P² as a host. Enmity and hatred arise whenever one (or both) ceases to fulfill its symbiotic role. It will pressure and tyrannize P if P does not function as It expects, especially if P tries to become master of his own house again. This is a typical situation in which P becomes ill. However, if P is able to free himself from the It(s), the It dies while P survives. On the other hand, P is subjectively so dependent on the It that he/she often prefers to die himself/herself rather than let the It die, since the It has become his/her new Absolute. Suicide is then the final logical consequence of this situation.
The interactions between the It and the persons show noticeable parallels with symbiosis and parasitism. Almost every characteristic of a parasite also applies to the It. (More in the unabridged German version).

    The following topics are discussed below:
        1. P²-dynamics in identification with an It, or an It-part.
        2. P²-dynamics towards an It or an It-part.
        3. P²-dynamics, that show P² in a victim role.

Hints
I have listed, point 1 and 2 corresponding ‘secondary reactions’ in the Summary table in column ‘P’.
`The victim dynamics´ are listed in column O. All types of dynamics overlap!

Person as It

Generally

        The graphic is meant to illustrate the direction of the dynamics:
        They come from the It-core of a person (or one of its parts) and go into the relative-area,
        or outside (left arrow), in an efferent way.

This section is about the dynamics that come from the absolute sphere of It, the Core It.
This is especially the case at the very beginning. In this case, P is identified with the Core It and acts in its order. Here, P acts as It because P has also become It, and the It is personalized and individualized.
To be precise, P does not act as the It itself, but as its functionary, participant, and representative. As mentioned before, P is like subject² and object at the same time, so P could be described as “sobject”. In this role, P is primarily a perpetrator, but also always a victim of the dominant It. Whenever P lives in the name of It, it is always according to the motto: all or nothing, black or white, up or down, gain or loss, this or that, enemy or friend, hate or love, and so on. People in this role are smug – smug like a god or smug like a devil. Common mottos are: “He who is not with me is against me.” Instead of the connecting “and,” the “or” dominates.
P is trapped in it and can only see the world from his specific point of view. We now live the life of It: We see only what It sees. We act as It wants us to act. We feel only what It feels. We love and hate what It loves and hates, and so on. I² do what It tells me to do. I do what my inner “dictator” tells me to do. In the worst case, I sacrifice my life to It, because the main goal of my life is It, the parasite. It gives me what I think I need. Only It lets me be I. Without It I do not exist. +It lets me live, -It kills me. Only +It gives me value. I am abandoned by It as soon as I stop bowing to It. This can be seen in almost all dynamics (processes, behaviors, etc.), even if they are contradictory. This is important for understanding behavioral disorders and paradoxical behaviors. It also means: P may primarily want something positive but do the opposite. Or P may want everything but achieve nothing. As mentioned earlier, the It, and therefore P, also tries to expand outward. So P is also able to dominate other people through It. What It does to me, I do to others. I demand that other people do what I think is right. People with different beliefs are excluded or fought. P experiences doubts about his way of thinking or acting as a questioning or attacking of his own person. Facts are taken personally. It has to be this way because P has identified with the ego, and whenever the ego is attacked, it has to be experienced as an attack on the person.
The Summary table shows in column `K´ across all aspects the character of P, if he has identified himself with It!

Person like It-part

The illustration shows from which It-parts P acts when P has identified him-/herself with the It.
The inverse sides in gray font are latent but can be activated at any time.

Pro-sA / +

P² is identical to pro/+sA. I am +* (pro-sA and +sA are used synonymously).

All pro/+sA determined actions are more or less variations of: P loves (absolutizes) something, him/herself or other people too much and hates (‒absolutized) their opposites too much.
If the person loves or absolutizes mainly him-/herself, that equals selfish, narcissistic or when P is fully identified with pro/+sA he/she shows possibly manic behavior.
However, I do not dare to lose the It, because that would also mean the loss of my identity, my Self. So I always have to feed it. In the background, the opposite, the contra-sA, is always waiting. I have to fight against its realization in order to secure the +*. Because of the constant effort required to maintain what we love, we also begin to hate it. We have to hate it because we are bleeding to death because of +sA. At the same time, we enjoy bleeding for it because it has become our absolute that we think we need.
P overextends himself in this particular role. P does not see his/her limits because he/she is doped with inner endorphins. P is manipulable and vulnerable at this point.
A special role is played by P’s behavior towards the positive sides of the contra-sA or the 0. When it becomes too expensive to maintain the pro-sA, the positive sides of the contra-sA become stronger. These contra-sides cause P to show (often suddenly) antagonistic, hostile behavior towards the pro-sA or its representatives (e.g. towards other P). Thus, ambivalent behavior is possible in any absolutization.

Contra-sA/ ‒

P² is identified with contra / ‒sA. I am ‒*. (The terms contra-sA, ‒sA and ‒* are used synonymously).
The ‒sA are our false devils/ enemies/ evil with whom we have identified ourselves.
The behaviors of a P, determined by ‒sA, are variations of: P hates him/herself or others too much and loves their opposites too much – since they are both sides of the same coin, the It.
Self-( or other) punishment and -aggrandizement may stay balanced or alternate.

The behavior of P, whenever P is identified with 0, is comparable to the behavior of a nihilist or a person that suppresses the most important aspects of life. The main characteristics are: I ignore, liquidate, neglect, sacrifice something, somebody or even myself.
Example: “I am the spirit of perpetual negation.” (Mephistopheles).
There are often so-called displacement activities or similar behaviors. The behavior of this P is often the opposite of the behavior that is determined by the all – in sense of all-or-nothing behavior. See also `Negation (all or nothing)´.

Ambivalent, Paradoxical Behavior

“I loved my heroes like a fly the light; I looked for their dangerous proximity
and fled and looked for them again.” Hölderlin, Hyperion´.

P will act in an ambivalent, contradicting way if two opposite powers are of equal strength. So, if all and nothing, or pro-sA and contra-sA have the same power within P. Example: P loves and hates at the same time. The opposite powers are often balanced or take turns. P will paradoxically act if his/her +sA is connoted negatively or his/her ‒sA is connoted positively. More → Ambivalent and Paradoxical Reactions

Equal and Opposite Behavior by pro-/contra-/0 sA

People who have the same sA can show the same or opposite behavior.
People who are determined by an opposite sA can show the same or opposite behavior.
Example: Someone may have the obsessive thought of killing someone because of the enormous hatred they have for that person. However, someone (like one of my patients) may have the same obsessive thought because of too much love. (My patient’s wife was his +Absolute, and he developed the obsession that he might kill her out of fear of losing her – the meaning of his life).
Although it takes a lot of energy to maintain these opposing positions, P often benefits from living from both pro-sA and anti-sA positions. This allows P to maintain a (costly) balance. P can compensate for the disadvantages of a sA with the opposite behavior. The person can use this “pendulum strategy” as a defense and thus become invulnerable.

Systematic (Optional Remarks)

Here only keywords because the role of P as a victim of Its, which I discuss later, is much more important in terms of the emergence of mental illness.
For more details, see Summary table in column P and Q.

P² with Misdimensioned Efferent Dynamics

a1: In this aspect, P mainly acts out of an absolutistic, or relativistic, or nihilistic position.
a2: P acts out of a hyper-identified or alienated position.
a3: P acts out of a hyper-realistic, or wrong, or hyper-realistic position.
Example for criticism on such a hyper-realism:

“The words of humans fill me with fear.
They name all the things with articulate sound:
[…] It’s the singing of things I’m longing to hear.
You touch them and stiff and silent they turn.
You’re killing the things for whose singing I yearn.“ Rainer Maria Rilke

Some P² in this position express everything in the indicative. They do not seem to know the subjunctive. Others however, do not seem to feel the desire to express themselves clearly.
a4: In this aspect, P acts out of a one-sided, monistic or dualistic position.
P isolates, merges, divides him/herself or something or other people.
a5: In this aspect, P mainly acts out of a deterministic and dogmatic or unreliable and libertinistic position. P makes him/herself, something or another person too insecure, wants to let go too much or on the other side, fixate too much, misprogram or determine.
a6: In this aspect, P acts out of a dictating, radical position.
P will equalize or radicalize; exaggerate or understate.
a7: In this aspect, P acts out of an automatic, autocratic, tyrannical or servile position.
P will (him/herself or else) subordinate, overadapt or become too independent.

P² Efferent Dynamics Concerning the IV Main Differentiations

Being:
With the identification of the specific It, P acts like a thing (or on the other side, like a ghost) because P is being materialized and depersonalized. |

Life:
With the identification of the specific It, P acts mainly as functionary, like a machine or a robot.
Or in the opposite: hyper-alive.

Qualities:
P acts out of a perfectionistic or negativistic or positivistic position.
The life, the actions of P become too negative, too imperfect or too positive or generally too faulty and disordered.

Connections (subject-, object-roles):
P acts out of a subjectivistic or objectivistic (functionalistic) or instrumentalistic position.
P mainly acts like an object (or an absolutistic subject).
Concerning connections: P creates connections where there are none or negates existing connections.

P-dynamics as a Strange Unit

P-dynamics as strange all-or-nothing:
P takes a totalitarian or negating position, depending on the It that identified him-/herself with. “All or nothing” says the It, and P acts by that principle. P totalizes or negates (or isolates). This all-or-nothing behavior can also be found in everyday life. Such as living the motto: “I either do the whole thing or nothing at all.”, or “If I cannot perfectly complete this, I will not do anything at all anymore.”, “You are either here for me completely, or you can leave.”

P as “God” or “devil”:
^P demonizes or idolizes or profanes him/herself or others out of this position.
P may act as his/her own God or his/her own devil.

P as “thing” or “hyper-person”:
Depending on the It, P may feel and act like a thing (depersonalized), or oppositely (like a hyper-person). Or P treats others that way.

P as “hyper-I” or another person:

P feels and acts like a person that is imprisoned within him/herself or only focused on him/herself in egocentricity (→ The Ego as a strange Absolute) – or acts and feels like another person (“heterocentricity”).

P-dynamics are too physical/ too spiritual/ too mental:
Depending on what part of P (body, soul, mind) is identified with an It, the affected person will feel a certain way. Here are also contrastive pairs. (Example: “Head” and “stomach”) Such as in the other aspects, nuances of behaviorism are missing. The behavior is too determined by body or soul.

Additional Differentiations (Examples)

I constrain here just on a few examples because the role of P as a victim of the Its in relation to the pathogenesis is more important. But as said: All types of dynamics overlap!
In keywords, I have listed all aspects of differentiation and their personal dynamics in the Summary table.

Aspect 8: Volition

We want whatever the It wants and not what we really want ourselves.

Aspect 11: Necessities

P acts from an It that represents absolute necessities. P will begin to believe that something that is not really an absolute necessity is definitely necessary and must be done. Since P as It is mainly in the role of the perpetrator, P will mainly demand that other people fulfill the requirements. These are usually dogmatic, bureaucratic, or technocratic people on the one hand, and people who tend toward anarchy on the other. Depending on the dynamics of the opposing pair, there is often a shift between the different positions.

Aspect 12: Morale

P acts out of an exaggerated conscience or out of a lack of conscience.
In the first case, there is usually a scrupulous personality.
If the conscience is the final authority, and P acts from it – rather than toward it – the person will believe that he knows exactly what is moral and what is not. In this position, P is convinced that he knows exactly what he is doing right or wrong.

Aspect 13: The Distorted View

Like looking through different glasses, the person has different views.
Left: = pro view; Right: = contra view; Middle: = ambivalent view.
Left: like magnification, rose-colored view with advantages². Right: dark prisms or no view.
Note: It is also possible to look through the different `glasses’ at the same time.

Personal Dynamic towards the It (Addiction; Defense, Anticathexis, Repression)

Generally

Considering mental disorders, this issue is more important than the described dynamics of P as It, because here the person has to make more sacrifices for It than before. P is like a prisoner of It. Therefore, P must make appropriate sacrifices to receive the positivity that seems absolutely necessary and to repel the negativity that seems dangerous and hostile. Put religiously: Having eaten the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in Paradise, we seem to be cursed with the absolute necessity of attaining the good and avoiding the bad.
P is in a `psychic Bermuda Triangle’ (see diagram). P tries to find an absolute +*, and in the long run sacrifices +¹ of himself (or other +). P does not find peace in this triangle and jumps from one pole to the other. P cannot be with it or without it. Whenever a +sA becomes my life, my drug, then the loss of it or the ‒sA is like dying or death. Therefore, I do everything to assure that +sA stays alive and to avoid ‒sA. With that, there is a constant necessity of exertion because the +sA needs to be fed, and the ‒sA needs to be fought at all times. The It lures with a +sA and threatens with a ‒sA.
The It can be everything for P: +It (object of addiction), ‒It (object of defense), or 0² (zero-object).

Fig. P in the `psychical Bermuda Triangle´.

Opposites are always present. At least potentially. After reaching the +sA, or the defense of ‒sA, the respective opposite becomes stronger because the price is becoming too high to keep the +sA alive and to avoid the ‒sA. The result is: I hate and love the It too much. From which I depend, I love and hate too much.¹⁰² Also: The dependent person easily makes other people dependent.

Addiction

P is looking for a +It/sA that gives absolute positivity (+*).
P feels great, awesome, high, when receiving +*. ¹⁰³

Addiction to what?

The addiction is directed towards something absolutized positive. Usually, that is a +sA. But it may also be the positive side of ‒sA or of 0, that we are addicted to. That is the case if +sA became too expensive, and if there is no other +sA as an object of addiction.
More important than addicting substances (alcohol, drugs) are `behavioral addictions´ (= non-substantial addictions).

Addiction to +sA

In the beginning, It offers mainly its positive side, the +sA. It always promises more than it can give. Compared to the first-class positive, It often has the advantage of faster satisfaction, even if this usually comes at a higher cost to P.

All aspects can work as +sA.
Examples:

Success (aspect 15)
P must constantly and consistently pump successes into the It-center to feel good, because the +sA that causes well-being has only short-term effects and soon becomes weak. We have to feed our ego. Therefore, we are condemned to success.
Security (aspect a5)
Security is often conveyed by precise rules that must be obeyed, as in an army. The actual danger is often pushed into the background. (A very grotesque example was the instruction to the 9/11 terrorists to make sure their clothes were clean in order to enter paradise). It is also a common behavior of people with obsessive-compulsive disorder who feel safe by following certain rituals. These compulsions come at a high cost to the individual.
Health (aspect 5)
The specific +sA or its representatives, the health fanatics or people who use health for business, the believers who see God1 only as a god of health – all of them tempt other people with the message that health can be completely achieved if certain requirements are met by P. (ideology of “healthism”).
Satisfaction (Aspect 7)
At present, drugs, internet addiction, football (and the like) play a big role in this aspect.
The more we seek satisfaction with these kinds of Absolutes, the more we will get compensatory satisfaction (or compensatory happiness). And as soon as the compensatory satisfaction becomes too expensive or no longer satisfies us, we will try to find another +*object. We may also let a part of an unattainable object temporarily satisfy our needs: at least a glimpse of a loved one, a piece of art, an idol’s autograph, etc.
The terms of psychoanalysis describe similar aspects: compensatory satisfaction, compensatory objects, compensatory actions. C.G. Jung calls neurosis compensatory-affliction. (It should be added that neurosis is also compensatory-unhappiness).
Briefly, the theory of S. Freud: Since the original object of love (mother) is forbidden, the child tries to find a compensatory object. The result of the suppressed original desire can be a symptom. This would partially satisfy the original desire because of the associative link between the desire and the symptom, so that the symptom symbolically satisfies the desire.
Freud says that compensatory satisfaction occurs whenever a desire or drive/instinct cannot be satisfied because of inner or outer prohibitions, and other actions (partially) satisfy these needs.
I distinguish between first-class (heavenly) happiness, which is free of charge, and second-class “happiness”, which has to be paid for (compensatory happiness).
For a general description of the term addiction to life´ see the section `Life and death as sA‘.

Addiction to +Side of ‒sA

Examples:
   • Choice/search of a negative identity (Erikson).
   • Seeking for sorrow, e.g., “It is easier for me to feel sorrow than to constantly be happy.”
   Or: “My sorrow is the strongest weapon against the fake optimism of my parents.”
   • “Addiction to illness” see: Morbid gain”
Also: Depression is the strongest (second-rate) remedy against the danger of becoming manic.
The same applies to mania, which is the strongest (second-rate) remedy against becoming depressed.
Addiction, drive or pulse to the +side of a ‒ part of an It is also a defense of the ‒ sides of a +sA.

Addiction to +Side of 0

Examples: Longing for nirvana or every-day reaction: If I cannot get everything, then I do not want anything at all. Because: The nothingness seems more bearable than the loss of +everything.

Defense and Anticathexis

Overview and Definition

Talking about defense or Defense-mechanisms (DM), I am referring to second-rate, usually unconscious reactions of the affected person towards absolutely negative perceived experiences (‒*), which actual are only relatively negative. ¹⁰⁴
Negative* sides of the different It/sA (or ‒A) are being fended. Whatever is perceived as absolutely negative, the affected person will view it as an attack on the Self. Therefore the person will not react relaxed or with relative methods. On the other side, the defense-reactions are inadequate, exaggerated and expensive, compared to first-rate solutions.
Synonyms or similar terms for defense-mechanisms: anticathexis, counter-reaction, second-rate protection/defense.

Anticathexis I view here as the defense of a part by an opposite. (More see below).
(I will equal treat anticathexis and reaction formation here for the sake of simplicity.)

The “defense” of negatively perceived consequences of +A is referred to as resistance.
I view Solutions or (primary) protection as first-rate reactions of the affected person towards the ‒*and other negative.

Coping and Defense

In short, coping is generally understood as stress management. There is a fine line between coping and defense. The more one leans toward defense, the higher the cost. I mean, defense and coping have only secondary value, because they ultimately depend on human strength, and human strength is limited. In contrast, first-rate solutions are mainly based on the Self, require less effort, are less costly, and are more effective in the long run. That is, absolutely negative experiences cannot be dealt with by the ego alone, because the ego has only relative power. Concepts of therapy and defense that focus more on the I than on the Self are, in my opinion, secondary. Typically, the self did not play a major role in S. Freud’s theories. The ego and rationality were Absolutes for him. (Freud: “Where the id was, there must be the ego”, “My God Logos”, and so on).
However, a defense system that focuses on both (ego and logos) seems to be too weak to compensate for deep disturbances. I think this is also the reason why Freud saw only a few starting points in the psychotherapy of psychoses. The strong and integrative powers of an actual Self remained unconsidered by him. Even self-psychology only tries to extend old psychoanalytic models, because it defines the Self only as a Relative.
(Further, see in Self-strength and Ego-strength or in the unabridged German version).

What is Being Fended? (Targets of Defense)

As mentioned before, everything that is experienced as absolutely negative is a target of defense. This is:
    1) ‒sA and the consequences
    2) ‒ of +sA (e.g., too costly harmony, esp. the loss of a +sA).
    3) ‒ of 0.

    About 1) Mostly fear, sadness, pain, guilt, anger, conflicts, bad experiences and burdens are defended. Especially what was experienced as absolutely negative has to be defended. At these parts that P identified him-/herself with, P is mostly endangered if they are being attacked. I² am the It. If you attack something* of me, you are attacking my Self. I call that the open black (or in case of +sA: white) gates within the defense-system of a person. Then P cannot differentiate between objective issues and personal issues. (Also see: Vulnerability-stress-theory).
    About 2) If somebody/something threatens my +sA, and I have to fear the loss of it, than somebody/ something becomes my enemy because it threatens the center of my existence. “All my life I have been haunted by the obsession that to desire a thing or to love a thing intensely is to place yourself in a vulnerable position, to be a possible if not a probable, loser of what you most want.”¹⁰⁵
That means that also the positive can be fended or feared if its negative side becomes too visible.
    About 3) ‘Horror vacui’ spreads fear and terror. P has to fill ‒0 with something. P has to pay a price. A constant escape from an unbearable emptiness. How many people cannot be without constant input.
Thus, P² often fears the loss of +sA, the coming of ‒sA or total emptiness more than its own death.

How and with What is Being Fended? (Remedies of Defense)

With what P can solve or fend off Negatives* ?
1. The first-rate remedies and opportunities leading to First-rate solutions are discussed later.

2. The main second-rate remedies of defense are:

Coping

which is more conscious, need Ego- strength and unnecessarily high expenditure of energy since the Ego does not act out of the actual Self (resp. +A).
• “Defense by Sacrifice“. They are described later in ‘Sacrificial-dynamics‘ and `Emergency solution by disease´ which play a special role in the pathogenesis and other Symptomatic Therapies and Emergency Solutions.

• Defense by “Anticathexis” = defense by respective opposites (Inclusive reaction formation):

The term `anticathexis´ is defined differently in the literature. I use it here to defend a part by its opposite, similar to the so-called reaction formation.
I would therefore speak of ‘defense by opposites’. See also section: `It-parts as Opposites…´, where we found how inversions in the second-rate realities create opposites that can strengthen, fight or neutralize. Here is about the latter two functions.

One can differentiate:
    a) Anticathexis by the contrary opposite (example: +sA against ‒sA)
    b) Anticathexis by the contradictory opposite (0)
The opposite It/sA of the same aspects are to be mentioned first, ultimately all the other aspects are to be mentioned too.
Example: Defense against the disadvantages of wealth* with modesty* (same aspect) or with self-punishment or illness (different aspect).
    c) Anticathexis by a similar part (This could also be called “defense by Co-cathexis”).

Further differentiation:

+ Anticathexis

P puts +* against – *, resp. `false Gods against devils´.
Examples: Work against boredom, hyper-control against chaos or sex against mortal fear. (Similar to S. Freud’s anticathexis ‘Libido against Destrudo’.)

‒ Anticathexis

A common saying is “To replace devil with Beelzebub)”, which describes the process of replacing a negative aspect with another negative aspect that might be even stronger. Illness as defense plays a big role in this aspect.
Example: Woman with cancer: “I hate everything to prevent myself from dying of fear.”
S. Kierkegaard: “From my earliest childhood a barb of sorrow has been lodged in my heart. As long as it remains, I am ironic; if it is pulled out, I shall die“. ¹⁰⁶
Additional example: If parents keep correcting their child over and over again, expecting it to speak properly, the likelihood is high that the child starts to stutter or stops speaking. Stutter can also be viewed as a counter reaction of the child. In those families, functionality and speaking are absolutized. To go against the pressure of expectations of those families, a counter position can be the strongest weapon:¹⁰⁷ A pronounced dysfunction (stuttering) is used against the sA (functionality). Usually there will be a kind of (unconscious) power struggle for the existence of the old sA (functionality), which stabilizes the family on the one hand, but mainly overstrains the index patient. As a rule, the affected person does not have an exact position, but alternates between pro- and contra-sA. The person sits between chairs. Sometimes he/she still finds support in the old sA, although it is also overstraining for him/her.
This situation applies to many psychically ill people. Depending on the case, illness as a defense can be more or less an anticathexis of – or of 0.

Otherwise

– against – of + (e.g. death wishes against unbearable life). – against – of 0 (e.g. hate, war, fanaticism etc. compensate inner emptiness).

Anticathexis by 0 (Repression)

Here, it is about the mechanisms, where – * is defended by a 0 (Nothing).
Psychoanalysis mainly describes those mechanisms by using the term “repression”.
I will present two examples out of the publication of I.D. Yalom ‘The Schopenhauer cure’ ¹⁰⁸
“Schopenhauer made me realize that we are condemned to spin endlessly on the wheel of desire: we want something, we get it, we enjoy a brief moment of satisfaction that quickly fades into boredom, and then inevitably the next ‘I want’ follows. Breastfeeding desire is not a way out – you have to jump off the cycle altogether… In fact, these ideas are at the heart of Buddhist teachings.” (p. 360, 338).
Additional keywords about that topic: Stoicism and similar escapism-ideologies; Buddhism: “Nirvana”, “Victory of renunciation”. Hermann Hesse: “Courage, my heart, take leave and fare thee well!”; Goethe: “This, die and become”, and many more. Also: Fending off the negative sites of the all by the nothingness.

S. Freud´s Anticathexis in Comparison with Pro-Contra-sA-Dynamics

S. Freud: Anticathexis “a psychical process that supports the psychical defense. Its main use is to prevent desires of a drive of the It to become real. Destrudo helps to neutralize libidinous desires – or vice versa.”¹⁰⁹

Discussion

In my opinion, it is an expensive emergency solution in the second-rate realities.
(Note: Freud only describes dynamics of second-rate realities.)
Anticathexis is about the dynamics between the named It-parts (pro/contra sA) which stand in opposition. E.g., if a part* (sA) is experienced too negative, its effect can be neutralized by its opposite (Contra-sA).
This anticathexis requires a constant supply of energy.
Even according to S. Freud, this energy is as great as the energy that the repressed part* has.

Internal and external Defense Mechanisms

Defenses can be internal or external. Internal defenses take place within the individual. In the case of “external defense mechanisms,” the individual blames others for his or her protection. For example, the one-sidedness of an exaggerated pacifism may be compensated internally by corresponding aggressive fantasies or externally by an aggressive partner. Similarly, the individual may be held responsible for the defensive functions of his partner or others. Such constellations are typical of Collusions.

The Double Character of Defense-Mechanisms (DM)

Due to the fact that sA/Its and its consequences are ambivalent, an sA can strengthen and/or weaken the defense system. This mechanism can be compared to a tank, which weakens the defense because it is very immobile, but also makes it less likely to be attacked. Another example is debt, which helps in the beginning but becomes very burdensome in the long run. Depending on the situation or time frame, there are either positive or negative consequences. Therefore, the sA/Its or strange Selves can be the second-best friends (after the Self) or the second-worst enemies (after the actual negative Absolute). However, the defense is always more costly than a first-rate Solution.

Overview of possible defense mechanisms from one’s own point of view see the Summary table columns O and P..

Summary of Defense-Mechanisms

Answers to some W questions: Who? Why? With what? With what? When? Where? Against whom? (How?, How long?)

Who defends? P².
What is being defended? Anything that is experienced as absolutely negative.
Why? To defeat the negative and keep the positive.
With what? Anything that is experienced as negative can be repelled by all psychically relevant aspects.
How? Mainly through anticathexis or sacrifice.
Where? Mainly in the subconscious of P².
For how long? Until a +sA dominates or until a real solution is found.
What is the price? P² usually pays with parts of himself, otherwise anything psychically relevant can be used to pay.
Who pays the price? If it is a sacrifice, P usually pays the price with himself, otherwise it is paid by other people or other realities.
How expensive is the price? The more of +A or the self that has to be sacrificed, the more expensive the DM.
What is being defended? The I and its system or ego.
Active or passive? Conscious or unconscious? Active and conscious as action or reaction, especially in the form of coping; passive and unconscious as processes and functions, especially in the form of defense mechanisms.

P-Dynamics toward Nothing*

It depends on the side of the nothing*:
1. Towards the main side of nothing (0 of 0: strange emptiness, nothing) → must be filled.
2. Towards the positive side of nothing (+ of 0: Examples: Nirvana, belle indifference) → ‘Search’ or addiction.
3. Towards the negative side of nothing ( − from 0. Examples: Horror vacui; Hell as nothing?) → Defense.
If we consider the behavior of P² in relation to the all-or-nothing alternative, then P² wants primarily everything +, nothing else. If P cannot have everything, she prefers nothing, rather than a Relative one.

Ambivalent and Paradoxical Reactions

Patient L: “There are two main misfortunes that I fear:
First, when that which I fear the most comes true.
and second, when that which I most desire comes true”.

To be exact, every reaction of P² is ambivalent because the It of them is ambivalent as well. The strongest ambivalence exists if a +sA-part and a ‒sA-part of one It are of equal strength, or if there are two contradicting Its facing each other. P² is caught within the It. So, P² is facing contradictions and paradoxes, that seem intractable for P² and that are the basis of many mental disorders.
P² constantly finds himself in all-or-nothing situations. P² can be torn between the plus-parts and the minus-parts of It ( sA or ‒sA), or he falls into the nothingness. ¹¹⁰ The opposing forces can also remain in balance () and neutralize each other. The person will have an overly loving, hating, or indifferent relationship with other people. Every dependent person loves or hates the person on whom he or she depends too much.
Because the sA are experienced very differently by the person, there may be some craziness that cannot be explained or understood with common sense. For example, what was initially rejected because it had a -* connotation can become +* and vice versa. However, these crazy things can have important functions in the second order dynamics. Often there are multiple functions at once: Addiction and defense simultaneously (see Freud’s “mixture of drives”) or alternately.
Addiction, defense, and sacrifice as functions of opposites (sA, -sA, 0) are parts of the totalitarian unit `It’.
Keywords: When the enemy dies, so does the false friend, or when the “devil” dies, so does the false God. But also vice versa: When the Devil dies, the false god can have a brief high. The false god needs the devil to be itself, and vice versa. My “God” is also my “Devil” (or nothing). Whatever I love excessively can also be hated excessively. In relationships, people tend to love too much (→ pact, symbiosis) or hate too much (→ enmity) or live both sides (love-hate) or lose themselves in emptiness (0).
I repeat: these opposites are just two sides of the same coin, the It (or the Strange Self). Although they are opposites, they are friends when it comes to opposing the Supreme Self. The Opposites can be active at the same time, or they can appear in phases, one after the other. For example, hyper-position and hypo-position can occur simultaneously or one after the other. “Because I am so submissive, I am the greatest and better than the others. Or the sequence of two contradictory desires: “I want your love, but because I have experienced love as exploitative in the past, I am also afraid that you will love me.
Likewise, I can now love something I used to hate because it frees me from the flip side of a +*. For example: “I hated the exhausting diets (during anorexia), now I’m (unconsciously) free of them and eat myself full (bulimia).
Such contradictions and paradoxes are created by `Inversions´, such as described at the beginning of the chapter ‘Metapsychiatry’.

Example of a Patient

Patient W. had problems with women: He saw women either as saints or as whores. He wanted to fall in love but was afraid to do so. He longed for intimacy and affection, but was afraid of becoming dependent on a woman. Typically, he fell in love with a prostitute because she was also dependent on him. That way he could control the relationship. But the more he fell in love with her, the more he was afraid of losing her or losing himself. He could not be without her, but at the same time he could not “really be with her.
“I loved her and hated her. As a result, he developed fantasies of murdering her to end the dependency and because he could not bear to imagine her sleeping with other men. But paradoxically, it was also right for him that she had sex with other men, because that way he did not experience his dependency as so strong.

Other Examples for “Love-Hate”

     • In sadomasochistic relationships.
     • In Borderline-disorders.
     • Tolstoy and his wife.
     • Pablo Picasso and the women.
     • Anyone who sacrifices too much for others. For example, idealists for a certain idea, mothers who sacrifice too much for their children, men who sacrifice too much for their jobs, a partner for the other partner, etc.
“If you begin by sacrificing yourself for those you love, you will end by hating those you have sacrificed yourself for.” (George Bernard Shaw).
An aid worker: “Most people I know went to developing countries as idealists and came back as racists.“

I suspect that many relationships fail not only because of too little, but also because of too much (excessive) love, because too much of a good thing becomes bad.

See also: `Possibilities of interactions´)

Fascination of the Negative and the Evil

Can’t everything fascinate people? Can’t everything have advantages, at least temporarily, and we fall for it / choose it, even if the price is too high?
Since every Relative has two sides, the inherently negative Relative also has a positive side, which can be fascinating when it dominates. (→ Examples of the Genesis of the three It-parts).

There are many different fascinations of the negative:

There is a fascination with evil.
From a religious point of view, the fascination with sin is similar: having eaten the apple of the knowledge of good and evil, we are condemned to do good and avoid evil, and it is fascinating to lift this curse by doing evil. Similar to Paul: “… the good that I want, I do not do; but the evil… “- that is, the power that wants good but creates evil” (based on Goethe).
There is a fascination to be just a thing / object or a machine instead of a person.
Example: “There was a grandiose emptiness and self-abandonment in the faces of these men that has probably never existed in the course of history… They lived as cleanly, as precisely, as thoughtlessly, as consciencelessly as living machines. They were just waiting to be switched on or off… machine men.“¹¹¹
There is the fascination of giving up oneself, the fascination of wanting to lose one’s own individuality and merge into a crowd.
There is a fascination to be sick rather than healthy.
There is the fascination of death and the nothing.
(Keywords: death instinct, longing for death, suicide. → S. Freud `Thanatos and → Inverted, Paradoxical World.)
They essentially correspond to what I have listed in the section on Morbid gain in detail’

Taboos probably play a special role in the fascination with evil.
Some people want only the positive and suppress the negative. But then the person lives against his nature and pays a price: he lives only half and unfree.
The complement, the counterpart – the negative side (evil, aggressive, immoral, etc.) is missing in his life. This is especially true of humanists, pacifists, idealists, altruists, perfectionists, and moralists. (Karen Horney called her “press angels”). An insoluble conflict arises: On the one hand, the person wants to live without negative sides, but on the other hand, he wants to be free and whole. This is why the negative sides are both taboo and fascinating. There are many examples in life and in fairy tales of how taboos are irresistible.

The fascination of evil can theoretically also come primarily from a ‒A (as primary sadism, primary destructionism etc..

It towards Person (sacrificial-dynamics and consequences)

Not only “revolutions devour their children” (Pierre Vergniaud) but all Its.
“There is no strong desire that you do not have to pay for.” (Elias Canetti)

The Its make all or nothing. Especially nothing. That is discussed here.
Sacrifice is a part of every second-rate dynamic and ideology.
The Its need sacrifices. They favor the Self, personal and lively subjects as sacrifices.
Its need either a) of its own P or b) others as a sacrifice.
Usually, it is connected with each other.
Everything personal can be sacrificed. Very important for our topic: the sacrifice of health.

How are the Sacrificial-Dynamics?
The second-rate personal dynamics (D²) are determined by the Its. Their priority is the maintenance of the Its (resp. the strange Selves). For this, the person can sacrifice himself or others, or the person is sacrificed. If P sacrifices too much of itself, P acts in a self-damaging and pathological way. If P sacrifices others (other people, other objects), P will make others sick. This often goes together.

For example: A one-sided love of one’s neighbor (altruism) has as its main consequence the loss of self-love (and also the loss of true love of one’s neighbor), just as a one-sided love of one’s self (egoism) has as its main consequence the loss of love of one’s neighbor (but in the end the egoist comes off badly, too).
General: A second-rate Absolute (sA) has above all the consequence of the loss of the same first-rate Absolute (but also the loss of the opposite).

To self-sacrifice: As mentioned before, P longs for an absolute positive. P is convinced that the It is something good (the best) although it is not and views something absolutely negative although it is not so negative. To achieve the +* and fend off the ‒*, P lives of its own costs, of its own substance.
P is a double loser! P loses the game and himself.
P can also take advantage of the inversion and make other people pay for it. The consequences of inversion can be transferred within WPI! It can be transmitted between W and P and I, or within W, P, or I.
Regarding mental disorders, we will focus on the dynamics of self-sacrifice:
These are mainly unconscious dynamics, processes, functions and unconscious behavioral structures. Above all, first-rate but also second-rate things are lost. Since the former are more serious, this loss is in the foreground.
(For all aspects, see also Summary table columns o and P).

Systematics (a selection)

Sacrifice of Absolute Dimensions

Especially the following first-rate dimensions are being lost:

       a1 Sense, transcendence, faith and love
       a2 Identity, the Self
       a3 Truth, reality and opportunities
       a4 Unity and variety
       a5 Safety and freedom
       a6 Basis, center and superstructure
       a7 Autonomy and refuge.

Sacrifice of BLQC

Loss of first-rate personal being, life, qualities and connections and the subject-role of P.

Sacrifice of Single Aspects

1. Sacrifice of the personal wholeness.
2. Sacrifice of the personal relationship to God, which may also lead to senselessness.
3. Sacrifice of the first-rate personality, which may lead to apersonalism.
4. Sacrifice of individuality, which may lead to the loss of I to Non-I.
5. Sacrifice of first-rate parts of spirit, soul and body, which may lead to mindlessness, soullessness and loss of health.
6. Sacrifice of first-rate love, sexuality, gender-role, which may cause their loss.
7. Sacrifice of first-rate, actual emotions, which may cause apathy and deadness.
8. Sacrifice of the own will and voluntariness, which may lead to abulia and a lack of voluntariness.
9. Sacrifice of actual personal belongings, which may cause personal poverty.
10. Sacrifice of possibilities and skills, which may cause powerlessness and weakness.
11. Sacrifice of personal order with the consequence of personal chaos.
12. Sacrifice of orientation, which leads to a lack of orientation.
13. Sacrifice of personal rights and opportunities of control, which leads to rightlessness and intemperance.
14. Sacrifice of creativity, which causes a lack of creativity.
15. Sacrifice of own activities with the consequence of inactivity.
16. Sacrifice of first-rate information and knowledge, which may cause a lack of knowledge and blindness.
17. Sacrifice of opportunities of expression and candor, which causes mutism and a lack of candor.
18. Sacrifice of own values and meanings, which may cause a loss of values and meaninglessness.
19. Sacrifice of the own past, which may lead to a loss of experience.
20. Sacrifice of the own time and presence, which may cause restlessness.
21. Sacrifice of the own future, which may lead to a loss of perspective.
22. Sacrifice of the own opportunities of corrections and compensation, which leads to faults and a lack of correction.
23. Sacrifice of the own protection, which causes vulnerability and defenselessness.
In the Summary table I have listed these “sacrifices” in column N with ↓.

More to Aspect 23: Loss of protection. (“The open gates of defense”)

The sacrifice of one’s own protection and safety leads to what I will call “the open gates of the defense of the Self. P is particularly vulnerable and manipulable in these areas. Therefore, a person can be hurt by taking away +sS or by threatening with ‒sS. The open gates (or sore points) of the psyche can also be recognized by the fact that P will take something personal because P identifies with it.

The Spare Rest of P¹

It seems important to me that despite all the P² dynamics, there is always a remnant of first-rate personality. This is usually the part of the personality that still allows P to make free choices. This fact is important for therapy purposes and will be discussed in more detail in a later chapter.

P Sacrifices Others and Others Sacrifice P

This publication is primarily concerned with P’s self-sacrifice and lack of self-protection because it is a major cause of the development of mental disorders. Therefore, I will only briefly discuss the victimization of others. However, the mechanisms described above are the same. They are then directed at other people or the environment so that they are more at risk of becoming ill than the person who causes the actions. Equally important, a person’s health is often sacrificed by others, especially if the affected P has little self-protection.

[In total It-results and P²-reactions summarized – see Summary table columns L to V.]

Phases of the Interaction of P² and It

(This chapter is shortened to a great degree. To read more, see ‘Relationship-disorders‘).

1^st Phase: Expansion and inflation with participation of P (of society), monopolization, boom.
2^nd Phase: Stagnation, crisis, tip over.
3^rd Phase: collapse, finale.

1^st phase: Expansion

P is still over-identified with +It. P has not yet experienced a reversed side of the It.
P tries to expand in the sense of the It.
Interphase: Increasing concentration on the needs of the It; Exclusion of the enemies; Black-white-scheme.

2^nd phase: Crisis

P only stays stable as long as he/she has enough energy to follow +*, fight against ‒* and to fill 0*. The exertion of force that is used by P, to stabilize the psychical balance/ the center, is becoming bigger and bigger. This force will be missing in general life.
In this phase, the It will be experienced as more ambivalent and negative.
P becomes increasingly a victim of It.

Typical features of this phase:

• Expensive balance

Ambivalent situations and dilemmas:
There are opposing phenomena that coexist and maintain a rigid balance.
There is always the danger of tipping over, losing balance, or being torn apart.
The smaller the basis for the equilibria (left and right picture), the more unstable and complex they are. There is no broad base as in W¹, but often only one point (= sA) on which the respective system depends. Here, there is a risk of loss of equilibrium, disruption and ambivalent or dilemma situations.

Examples: see unabridged German version. Symbol also Yin-Yang ☯, see below.

• Vicious cycles or spirals

• Zero point

There is chaos at the zero point. The person is ‘up in the air’. Usually P has clear symptoms, is vulnerable – and constantly in danger of falling back into old patterns.
The pros and cons of the Its are equal. This is also a point where P has to make decisions.
The zero point is both danger and opportunity.
In this highly unstable state, just before a change in the system, the Its are very aggressive and cause P to be very agitated (example: panic attacks or florid psychoses)..

• Reversal into the opposite

This graphic illustrates the tip over into the opposite (psychical tilting mechanism) by using the Yin-Yang symbol or into disintegration. P can tip over into the opposite or into emptiness and disintegration. Where there were advantages before, there are now more and more disadvantages until the It (or the system) completely tilts into the opposite or disintegrates. The illustration should also show how the pros and cons of It increase exponentially before the system tips over. The system inflates and collapses → 0 or tilts into the opposite.

References
• Toward → 0, e.g., Friedrich Nietzsche: “... the man seems to have fallen on to a steep plane – he rolls faster and faster away from the center – whither? into nothingness?“¹¹²
• Toward → 0pposite: In general: exaggerations, extremes, strange absolutes and the like. E.g., Robert Musil: “Ideals have curious properties, and one of them is that they turn into their opposites if one exactly wants to obey them.“¹¹³
Or P. Watzlawick, who pointed out that an excess of good always turns into evil. Or: Too much of a good turns into negative.

You will find in all aspects of WPI this tipping over into the opposite according to this basic pattern, which can be caused by all kinds of Its!

In practice, it usually means that the person(s) have to sacrifice themselves or others more and more in order to compensate for the ever-increasing disadvantages in the system and thus prevent the downfall of what is their Absolute, their “Self”, what they themselves have become.

It is the dynamics of whole societies, of whole cultures but also of individuals who were destroyed like this.
For me, Friedrich Nietzsche is a typical example of how in the course of his life an ever more dangerous, ever-increasing struggle for his ideals and against his anti-ideals led to his psychosis. (Also see: Crisis and falling ill and ‘About the emergence of paradoxes‘.)

3^rd phase: Collapse

P is now the final victim/ sacrifice of the It.
Also see: Sacrificial-dynamics, Crisis and falling ill.
P is now the final victim/ sacrifice of the It. First P is going down, then his Its.
In this phase, it is typical for the person to fall ill because they can no longer pay the price for maintaining +sA and the defense against ‒sA and s0.

It is the dynamics of individuals, but also of entire societies and cultures, that are broken in this way.
In this phase, the mercilessness of the ruling It toward P is quite unvarnished. Whereas at the beginning of their interaction, It seemed to have given P absolute importance, now P is more and more brutally suppressed and sucked out. P must sacrifice himself for his It – or, from P’s point of view, P prefers to die himself before sacrificing his strange Absolutes.
For me, Friedrich Nietzsche is a typical example of how, in the course of his life, an ever more dangerous, ever more intense struggle for his ideals and against his anti-ideals led to psychosis.

Complex Personal Dynamics and Relationship Disorders

Possibilities of Interactions

Every P² can create a pact with another P², fight, or neutralize him/her.
(Symbols: OO = Pact, # = Opposites, 0 = annulment ).
That means, they create pacts, opposites or neutralize each other because each of their It/sA -centers has three main options of reaction: too pro(+), too contra(‒) or too 0.
Each P² is therefore very fast friend or enemy or indifferent to other P².
Put in other words: P² tend to love or to hate others too much, or to ignore them.

The graphic illustrates two P² with all their It/sA interaction possibilities. Example: If the first P² absolutizes ‘wealth’, the white triangle represents the pro-sphere (wealth) with its three sides/corners (+/-/0) = advantage, disadvantage and indifference of wealth. The gray triangle represents the opposite of wealth – poverty – and its three sides/corners. The dotted triangle represents neither wealth nor poverty (0). All three triangles (parts of 1. P²) are connected and interdependent.(→ `It as nine-sided triad´). Depending on which side of the It/sA is activated, the second person’s It/sA (or Co-It/sA) will merge, fight, or be extinguished. Assuming that the second person is dominated by ‘power’, the advantages of the first person’s wealth would form a pact with the advantages of power and collide with the disadvantages of power, etc.

List of all interactions in second-rate personal systems, “games” of P², and details on pacts, antagonism and annulment, see unabridged German version.

Interactions of Opposite P²s

Opposite It/sA fight or support or neutralize each other.
   • Opposite It/sA fight each other if they are both connoted equally. (E.g., Wealth is +*, asceticism is +*).
   • Opposite It/sA support each other and make a pact if they are connoted opposite.
   (Example: wealth is ‒* and asceticism is +*)
   • Opposite It/sA neutralize each other if they suppress each other´s advantages and disadvantages.
   (Example: wealth does not matter, asceticism does not matter).

Interactions of P²s who are too Similar

   • Overly equal P²s make a pact if they are connoted the same.
   • Overly equal P²s fight each other if they have opposite connotations.
   • Overly equal P²s neutralize each other if they suppress each other´s advantages and disadvantages.

Overly Equals and Opposite in Relationships

When trying to find a particular cause for a particular result (e.g., certain actions/reactions/symptoms/behaviors), one should consider not only the primary cause, but also the opposite as a cause.
A common example is the combination of morality and immorality. Normally, morality would suppress immorality. But the opposite can also happen, if excessive morality causes immorality. In a relationship, a hypermoral person might cause others to behave immorally. Or excessive fidelity causes betrayal, fixated love causes hatred, and so on.
In principle, love sees hate as its enemy. Therefore, love is the strongest remedy² against hate.
However, excessive love* will promote hate* if love* becomes too negative (too exhausting). Then love and hate make a pact with each other. Conversely, when hate becomes too negative, excessive love appears as a savior.

Further examples:

Masculinism (machismo) fights feminism and vice versa – but at a certain point both create what they fought before.
Masculinism oppresses women and gives men substitute potency, but in the long run impotence. Impotent men need masculinism (and pornography) to stay potent, even though they tend to remain impotent in the long run. Then they have to take sexual enhancers, which in turn benefits the pharmaceutical industry, which then makes a pact with the porn industry.
Exaggerated feminism oppresses men and gives women short-term surrogate satisfaction but long-term frigidity. Frigid women need feminism for surrogate satisfaction, although they tend to remain frigid in the long run.
Both masculinism and exaggerated feminism encourage homosexual tendencies.

(→ Aspect 6: Gender, Love, Sex and The Opposites and their Dynamics).

Inversed topics always have two opposite meanings. ¹¹⁴
Examples
Because my father drinks too much alcohol, I drink too much. / Because my father drinks too much alcohol, I don’t drink.
“You feel good because you have nothing to do.” / “I feel bad because I have nothing to do.”
“We have so much debt already that it does not matter if we spend a few more dollars.” / “We’re already so far in debt that we have to save every penny.”
You: “I’m already sick, I can’t handle your sickness.” / Him: “I thought you would be able to understand my illness and my situation because you are sick yourself.” Etc.
There may be a special situation where the pros and cons (pro and con) have the same strength. This can also be the reason why a person is desired and feared at the same time. I may fear or desire the opposite at the same time. In this case, I love and desire one thing and its opposite at the same time. (See also `Ambivalent and paradoxical reactions´).

Personal System and Relationship Disorders in the Course of Time

1^st Emergence of the Strange, Collective Absolute – the Collusion

The origin of a disturbance in a system or relationship is usually a mental overload, to which the affected person reacts with compromises or emergency solutions. In the emergency, they try to find support and relief in the Relative. Since their previous Absolute has failed them, they create new bases, new centers, new strange Selves, compensatory Absolutes, or reactivate old ones.¹¹⁵

Often the new center is established within a group/system. In this way, fixed balances are created (usually unconsciously) that save the system from the feared collapse, but at a high cost.
The system, as well as the individual, is stuck in a constant dilemma: on the one hand, there is a desire to change the emergency balance and end the costs, and on the other hand, there are strong tendencies to remain in homeostasis in order to avoid the feared collapse.
The basic patterns of these disturbances are the same as the strange self disturbances and will be found in more detail in this chapter. In the following section, I would like to point out the most important aspects of relationship disorders.
Like mental disorders in general, the story of relationship disorders is one of dependence or lack of relationships. Dependency is mainly caused by false love and false hate. They cannot be separated because false love also contains parts of hate and lack of relationship, such as a person who hates another person cannot be separated from that person and cannot have a real relationship. Dependence means to be dependent on sA. sA can be a person or something that has been absolutized by P.

Example

A person `A’ may be dependent on two strange Selves (sS), which may be performance* and intellect*.

This person `A’ is dependent on these two factors. They are important to him, `A’ is fixated on them. They have absolute qualities. A’ gives them more importance than himself. Whatever we have already discussed when talking about the strange self applies here. The person `A’ is determined by three main factors: The actual Self and two strange selves. Whenever other people create a relationship with person ‘A’ where they cooperate with the dependency of ‘A’, a collusion is created. ¹¹⁶
The direct dependences/ fixations of person `A´ will also become a dependences/ fixations of other persons/ people. More precisely: Person `B´ cooperates with the fact that the strange-Selves of `A´ (achievement* and intellect*) determine the relationship. Person `B´ is caught in a co-dependence.
These dependencies can only come from one person – but usually two or more people are involved. In our example, there will be an additional sS (absolute fidelity towards the partner) of person `B´ that also is part of the relationship. Person `A´ will also be dominated by that sS. With that, the interdependence becomes even stronger. The misabsolutizations are transmitted and determine both of them (or the whole system). All the affected people then become dependent. On one side, the sS/sA cause the affected people to stick together, on the other side they appear as topics, that cause arguments and disagreements later on.
If we think of multiple people, such as a family (parents, two kids) that adapted the mentioned absolutizations, which we will mark as 1*, 2* and 3*, the situation will be as listed below:

                    Illustration: Four people have the same absolutizations (1*, 2*, 3*), that oppress their own Self.
                           All of the affected people are therefore dominated by the named strange Absolutes.
                            Similar constellations can be found in bigger groups or societies.

There are other illustrations as well:

Left hand side: People circle around three, second-rate fix points. They create an unstable wholeness.
Motto: “We (A, B, C, D) agree that there are 3 priorities in our lives (here: achievement*, intellect* and fidelity*).
They are our unconditional goals in life. They give us self-affirmation, fortune, sense, stability etc.
We submit ourselves to them.”
Right hand side: Possible “orbits” of these three persons around the three sA.

Although those people are individuals, they are mentally connected with each other through the sA and represent a whole, a system of collusion. One sees, that the system of collusion is marked by the fact that it does not have one center but multiple centers which are orbited by these persons. They can be compared to fix points although they are really not. They may be called second-rate centers or second-rate fix points. The affected people “wobble” around them. Their orbit is more similar to an ellipse than an actual circle (Greek: ellipsis = deficiency). ¹¹⁷

You can also call it an unconscious strange communal Self, an unconscious common pseudo-identity, or a collective strange absolutization/collective It, which is the basis of these systems.
This system is dominated by a particular mind. Everything of the actual self, such as identity, right of self-determination, self-esteem, self-security, and so on, is made dependent on the collective strange Absolutes (sA). Therefore, there is a kind of pressure to conform for all members of the system. Everyone has to function in a certain way for the system to function. Even though the sAs give the affected people what they cannot get for themselves (at least they think so), at the same time they are like holes that need to be constantly filled or like predators that need to be constantly fed. The food they like best is the Self. The sAs partly protect the affected people, but they also expect them to give up their Selves.
The ambivalent role of fixated familiar mindsets, taboos, principles or ideologies was mentioned before.
The created wholeness with its various centers is only stable as long as the members affirm it as such. As soon as one person questions a point or does not play the expected role, the whole system becomes unstable. Until that happens, the system can be compared to a conspiratorial unit with strict rituals. If someone does not follow these rituals, he must expect sanctions. Instead of achieving free self-determination, everyone is stuck in the circle of shared absolutizations. Family therapists call this the “family myth. Ferreira says that the family myth, like any other myth, expresses shared beliefs about people and their relationships within families. They are beliefs that are accepted and held as sacred, even though they contain a variety of falsehoods. The family myth dictates the roles of the members. These roles and duties are fully accepted even though they are absolutely false and foolish in reality. No one would dare to reevaluate or change them..¹¹⁸ If a member of the family/system tries to play a role other than the one assigned, it will be seen and treated as a betrayal. ¹¹⁹

Although the change would be beneficial to all members, it is initially seen as a danger, which causes resistance. The more one or another member of the system has to lose, the stronger the resistance, although in the long run it is the other way around.
Everything in this world can be absolutized and then take a central position. As mentioned before, certain ideologies, ideals, taboos, and people or their ways of thinking are most often absolutized. This makes them the cause of Collusions. Especially concerning relatives, a person often mistakenly believes that it is love to give up their right to self-determination and to place the other person at the center of their being.

It can be distinguished,:
• identical (or symmetric) collusion: People who are part of the collusion have the same sA.
• complementary collusion: The absolutizations complement each other.
• mirror-image collusion: The sA are primarily opposites (+sA # ‒sA) but the reversed sides match each other (= pact of the opposites).

In the example above, all the people involved have the same fixation centers.
The main motto of complementary collusion is: “I will unconditionally fulfill your wishes if you fulfill mine in return. This kind of “teamwork” is even stronger if the members have certain talents – or even: if everyone has to do it. So if one member has to achieve something, and another person has to give it to him.

Example – different strange Absolutes, that work in a complementary collusive way:

At first, these people are like a wheel of fortune: their ideals * and taboos * complement each other, and they can both be what the other needs them to be. Later, it becomes clear that they must be what the other person needs them to be. The absolutized positive must be given at all costs, while the absolutized negative must be defended at all costs. These or other collusions are only possible if the people involved are not determined by the actual self, but by sA.

People may only be dependent within the system
and collusively connected if they are also sA-determined themselves.

Whether the collusion is identical or complementary: The initial wheel of fortune eventually turns into a vicious circle (see below). Since the dependency is mostly unconscious, it takes a long time to analyze the patterns of collusion. Initially, people feel a strong common bond, such as “We are creating an ideal whole together,” or “We have agreed to always be there for each other,” “Your happiness is my happiness,” “Only you make me happy,” or even “It does not matter how I am, as long as you feel good.”
Such symbiotic feelings are very pleasant for people, especially at the beginning of a relationship. This is the +* side of collective misabsolutions, but it is inseparable from a -* and a 0 side. The core of the later struggles can already be seen in them.
This situation could be symbolized as follows:

Necessity of a balance between two people.
The smaller the same basis, the less scope there is for the two P in the system.
The basis is narrower the farther the sA is to the actual A.

Illustration: symbol of collusion between a man and a woman. ¹²⁰
Both cores (Selves) are not free/independent, as it would be optimal but overlap each other. One is within the core of the other, one is the other´s strange Self.
Left: The man determines the woman. Center: She determines him. Right: The mutual heteronomy put together.

Both have a symbiotic, interdependent relationship. He is in her core and she is in his core. In the beginning they are complementary, although he is a strange Self to her and she is a strange Self to him. One is the self-replacement of the other. Like this: One is the other’s happiness, because they cannot be happy enough on their own. So each one has to be the other’s happiness. Or one is the other’s compensatory self-protection, self-esteem, self-determination, etc. One’s desire becomes the other’s command. Each has primary responsibility for the other, which also limits one’s right to self-determination. This also means: All people who participate in a collusion give up their self-determination (partially). They live a secondary, non-actual, heteronomous life instead of a life based on voluntariness and self-determination.
Everyone is in control of everyone else. If a woman has a lot of sex appeal, she may dominate the man.
But at the same time, she becomes the sex object of the man who dominates her. They both dominate and are dominated at the same time. They experience a +*(thrill) emotion when they get what they want, the +sA. But they also feel bad (‒*) if they lose it or if they are being confronted with their ‒sA. Then, there will be a crisis.

Another picture: Both work with each other like (uneven) gear-wheels: Wherever one person has a deficiency, the other person has something to give.

Often the patterns of collusion are intergenerational and can be found in the relationships between parents and children. In the next generation, you often find the same sA (or collusion pattern) or the opposite! You can think of it as many gears, like a clock mechanism. Functioning is the first priority. The individuals are the wheels in a gear (family, group, state). Not surprisingly, some people feel like they are just a small cog in a huge wheel? If you look at the bigger picture, you will realize that each person (wheel) has to function in a certain way because the person and all the others need it that way. Everyone has to make themselves and everyone else slaves to their own strange Absolutes.

Within the system of collusion, there are different kinds of dependency. It can be mainly from one person, while the others just follow (unknowingly). However, it is more common for all of the people involved to be part of something that causes dependency and also causes the others in the system to be subjugated. To some extent this is normal. Every person is somewhat heteronomous and transmits this to other people. There, the person is manipulable, corruptible, oppressed, and degraded.
As strong as the binding forces may be, there will be more and more counter tendencies within the system to try to break the bonds and leave the system – especially when it comes to the members of the system who have to pay the highest price for these fixations.

Typical Examples for Collusions

Old rich man and young poor woman (complementary collusion)
Prostitution: The man gives the woman money to have the sex he needs (or thinks he needs), she gives him sex and gets the money she needs.
Male helper – sick woman
Admiring mother – grateful son
Strict parent – obedient daughter.
Harmony-seeking woman who wants to be loved – man who wants approval.
Partners who share the same anti-sexual morality (identical collusion): Both have a fixated view:
Sex is dirty, they are afraid of sex (-*). Advantage: No arguments, no conflicts; Disadvantage: No pleasure.
He: addicted to alcohol and therefore impotent; she: cannot be alone, gives him alcohol, makes him (unconsciously?) impotent and prevents him from being interested in other women. He stays with her and takes care of her, and she does not have to be alone.

In the literature, the following examples are usually given: The collusion of a helper and a person in need (= oral collusion), a person who idealizes and a person who is idealized (= narcissistic collusion), a ruler and a sufferer (= anal-sadistic collusion), a sexual leader and the one who is led (= phallic-oedipal collusion). Other examples: Sado-masochistic relationship; family collusion with a paragon and a black sheep; victim-offender collusion, and so on. ¹²¹
There is an endless amount of such patterns of dependence. They can appear in relationships, families, or other groups and societies.

What is the Common of these Collusion Systems?

They are the result of the dominance of mis-absolutions and negations in a system.
Factual issues that disrupt the sA are taken personally.
The affected person is dependent on his/her own strange self and those of others.
Everyone in the system is conditioned to those ss. Everyone in these areas is manipulable,
corruptible, alienated, dependent, and has become an object.
Everyone experiences the common sS as more important than the actual Self.
Everyone becomes an expedient (to reach the sA).
Everyone is in the realm of the other Self.
Everyone loves himself only under certain conditions, when the sS-requirements are fulfilled.
Everyone does not love himself and others enough.
The members (partially) sacrifice the most precious thing they have, the actual self,
for something relative.
In the beginning, the collusion has more subjective advantages than disadvantages.
Everyone gives up their first-rate responsibility for themselves and others. At first this seems relieving. No one has primary responsibility anymore, which looks like a perfect deal. Eventually, this happiness turns into a kind of clock mechanism.

Second Phase: the System is Still Functioning (Clock-Mechanism)

While the benefits of collusion are at the forefront in the beginning, the high comes to an end in this phase. The system still works, but it requires much more effort. The advantages and disadvantages of collusion are still balanced. The system is in a stalemate. Everyone gives what they have to give and is still able to meet the demands. Reciprocity is still balanced. As the benefits of collusion diminish, the system faces a dilemma: the previous equilibrium becomes too expensive, but venturing into something new seems too risky. The question is: who has to pay for this dilemma? And: Who will make the effort to solve the common problem?

Third phase: Crisis, Enmity and Conflict

“Kill your neighbor as yourself” (Andre´ Glucksmann)

In the crisis, all the extremes become more apparent. The system loses its balance.
(See also Reversal into the opposite´).
A crisis is developed if the compensation forces of the members are exceeded. It is the time of mutual set-off, blame assignments, in which everyone also has a piece of right. (Common example: He drinks because she is nagging, she is nagging because he drinks).
The crisis happens along with similar intra-psychical processes. The crisis of the collusive relationship is preprogrammed if the affected people did not find a deeper solution so far. ¹²²

The disadvantages of these relationship patterns become more apparent:
One is in control of the other. Each becomes more manipulative and corruptible. Each gives too much while sucking the other dry. Each becomes more and more irritated. This becomes understandable because both are experiencing a kind of love deficit and the compensating love is not giving enough. Both want true love more and more. The only way they can see is to give love by fulfilling each other’s needs. Since they love each other only under certain conditions, it is difficult to maintain the love, especially when the other person’s love seems to disappear as well. “I sacrificed myself for you. “I no longer loved myself, but only you.” Sentences like these can be heard in almost every relationship crisis. Both feel more pressure as the crisis deepens. Both have to put much more effort into the relationship to be happy. The freedom they have becomes less and less and the dependency becomes greater and greater.

In this phase, everyone feels like the object of the other’s gratification (not without reason). And indeed: They abuse each other and themselves (usually unconsciously) to keep their own +sA and ward off the -sA. The young, poor woman (example above) will accuse the old, rich man of seeing her as a sex object, while the man will accuse the woman of only wanting his money. Both are somewhat correct in saying: “You’re making me dependent on you. You are sucking me dry. I am just an object to you, just an instrument to satisfy your desires (sA)”. ¹²³
In this situation, people argue with half-truths, seeing themselves as the only victim. They do not mention the other half of the truth: their own perpetrator role and that they have allowed the other person to act as a perpetrator or that they have allowed themselves to be treated as a victim. They see themselves as the loser and their partner as the winner, which is not true. They ignore the fact that the main reason for the crisis is not a lack of love for the other person, but for a relative. It is love in a roundabout way, “wrong” and fixated love, and all people involved in the situation come out badly. Everyone is betrayed. But the people involved usually have no overview.(→The absolute perspective). They do not realize what kind of unconscious dynamics caused them to become victims. These people remain in a vicious cycle, such as “I will only give you what you need if you give me what I need,” or “If you stop loving me, I will stop loving you.
Soon there is a struggle. These people dig in and fight for the survival of their mental life. In reality, they are fighting for the survival of their strange Self. They are convinced that they cannot live without it. The partners usually fight on different levels: On the sS level or on the actual Self level. The sS levels are contradictory in this phase and also contradict the Self level. Therefore, these people live and talk with each other at cross purposes.

The communication, argumentation and eventually the fight of the partners is mainly about the sS* (arrows).
People take different standpoints and therefore talk at cross purposes. Direct communication has stopped (||).

Such as the strange Absolutes were a big part of the relationship in the beginning, they are also the main focus in the fights.
Jürg Willi: ”Partners often represent themselves as a polarized unit that is being held together by a common issue of dispute”.¹²⁴ Unconsciously but accurately the partners injure their strange Selves. Those are the sore points because there is no actual Self in those spheres (no self-protection, no self-esteem, no self-identity). Thus the attacks on the Absolutes will be experienced as an attack on the respective person him-/herself. ¹²⁵ Therefore, the attacked person feels like he/she has to fight for his/her right of existence, even for his/her life. The use of absolute-terms such as “always”, “never”, “definitely”, “impossible” is another indicator that the conflicts take place in the absolute-sphere of the person.

Let’s take another look at the crisis situation using the example of the boat without keel (= without +A), where two people maintain an expensive balance. Here, the complex dynamics in which the system members are located, is particularly clear:

They both stabilize and burden each other at the same time. They are both right and wrong. Right, because they stabilize the system, and wrong, because stabilization comes at a very high cost and because they do not risk change. So each can rightly accuse the other of being wrong. But with the same right, each will be able to claim that he only stabilizes the system and that change is dangerous.
“You are the only reason why I lean back so far; otherwise you would fall into the water. “This is your way of thanking me for my sacrifices, for which you now blame me.
The other person may argue that he/she needs to lean out more to balance the boat because the other person is already leaning out so far. Both sides may be well-intentioned but receiving only criticism. The person may even be silently second-guessing himself. So the circle is closed: I, or they, or everyone, is doing it wrong. “The way you are doing it is wrong. The system is destroying itself, although no one wanted it to.¹²⁶
It is a fallacy to think that a person could free oneself by taking a counter position. The person remains in the system and stabilizes it even more. Only a positive destabilization (sitting relaxed inside of the boat, or -better- choosing a boat with a keel), or leaving the system will help. However, this is usually viewed negatively by the other members of the system, because the system becomes temporarily unstable.
If a member no longer meets the common sA requirements and is no longer manipulable, or he/she is no longer able to be part of the stabilization of the system – then the system is in crisis and this member will encounter Resistance (internal and external).

4^th Phase: Sacrifice, Illness as Emergency-Solution

If a system faces the danger of decompensation, it can be compared to a boat that is about to keel over. One of the most important tries to stabilize the (family-)system, is the emergency-solution with illness. ¹²⁷
The person sacrifices his/her health to stabilize the system. He/she is victim and martyr for the system.
Barbara Gordon describes in her book “I´m dancing as fast as I can” particularly impressively the overly high price for a “happy” but dependent relationship and how quickly it can tip over to its opposite.
“I would rather be sick than see the others sick”, “It is better to be sick than to question the family”. Such are the unconscious mottoes of the patient, and he/she does not have to question his/her own absolutizations. As the system becomes more and more self-destructive (the more sA-determined it is), the costs will rise. But not everyone pays the same price. Even if the index patient often pays the highest price, it will still make sense for the therapist to accept all members of the system and their situation, and not to take a single-point position. Only when there is an accepting attitude will it be possible to try real and deeper Solutions which are usually painful for the included people, although they are an advantage in the long run.
(See also `Resistance´ and concerning therapy `The umbilical cord´).

From Complex to Symptom

Complex Interactions

Overall, I adopt a bio-psycho-social model of health and illness.
This chapter is mainly concerned with the development of symptoms or mental disorders by the various causative sA / Its or complexes. S. Freud imagined that psychic forces can act like physical forces with vectors. Then the sum of the energy would be transformed into a symptom. Similarly, Kurt Lewin’s field theory states that “an arrangement of psychologically relevant forces (vector forces) gives rise to individual behavior.” ¹²⁸
Von Uexküll created the term of “changing function units”. ¹²⁹
These conceptions correspond to those of this thesis, which regard the sS/Its and their complexes as dominating “function units” with corresponding vectors.

I assume the following hypotheses:
• Psychical symptoms or diseases have different biopsychosocial causes.
• Psychical symptoms or illnesses have predominantly psychosocial causes caused by inversions of
fundamental meanings. These causes are in the foreground here.
    • Symptoms are equivocal because different reasons may cause symptoms to occur.
    • Every inversion has the potential to cause/support any symptom, although with varying
      probability.
    • Psychical  symptoms may have organic causes.
    • Symptoms may be signs of an aberration or a misbehavior of the affected person
      him-/herself.
    • The appearance of symptoms may also have nothing to do with the person concerned but
      originate from other sources (environment, other people, etc.) Rarely are they from +A. ¹³⁰
    • Finally, symptoms can also be an expression of positive development; as in withdrawal,
      when the individual tries to relativize the It/sA-complexes on which he is dependent.
    • Ordinarily, many factors together will cause a symptom or a mental disorder.
The types of conditions are similar to those of weather or accident occurrence. Predicting the weather is probably easier than predicting symptoms. In most cases, the relationship between cause and symptom is difficult to discern. Some conditions seem to be more constant, others more variable. Organic or even genetic causes are more constant, while psychic or mental influences are more variable. Even a very brief influence can cause symptomatology, like the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.

The occurrence of symptoms seems to depend on the following factors:
• What kind of It/sA are being effective? The kind of It/sA  also determines the effects.
• What effects does the +sA, or the ‒sA have? The +sA mostly attracts (addiction), whereas the
    ‒sA causes fear.
• What is the difference in the effects of a +sA in the shape of a person (idol*) and an object, or
    ideology (success*)?
• How is the interaction and how influences that affect the person?
• How is the person structured? Organically or psychically.
• Where are their “black”, “white” or 0 points, where P is seducible, able to be frustrated, or without answer?
• If a dysfunction is found, it is most likely to affect the area where that particular function is necessary or dominant (in psychosomatic medicine: skin: mostly contact; gastrointestinal tract: mostly ingestion and excretion; liver and pancreas: mostly processing/digestion; kidney: mostly excretion; larynx: mostly output of information, etc.).
• How are the outer circumstances?
• How is the further inner/outer interaction between all the effective powers?

There are many factors that determine what kind of psychical  or mental disorder is being developed.
Or as Heimann said: The symptom is the “Common end of complicated condition connections.“ ¹³¹
As mentioned, I believe that inversions play a big role as primary causes.
In addition, I am convinced that the cause of mental disorder is less specific than generally meant. One reason for the small specificity of the causes can be found within the “spreading and compression” of the effects (discussed below).

Spreading and Compression

E. Bleuler writes: “Contrary to previous expectations, the same psychical injury can cause many symptoms, and the same symptom can have many causes.”¹³²
Similar A.R. Brunoni: “… patients with different mental disorders can have similar symptoms, whereas those with the same diagnosis can have different symptoms.”¹³³ L. Ciompi has attributed these experiences to various generalization and abstraction processes.

In the context of this publication this means
All It/sA and their complexes scatter in such a way that they can cause many disorders, e.g. all pr disorders can be caused by different It/sA and their complexes.
None of these entities has only one effect, but several effects, each with three contradictory effects (pro, contra and 0). If we assume that every person carries a large number of such complexes, then this also means that there is a large number of different factors of effect.

Read from left to right, those graphics illustrate the following aspects of spreading and compression:
– The picture on the far left illustrates how one It (*) is the cause of three opposite vectors. ¹³⁴ There is one main-vector (solid arrow) and two side-vectors (dashed arrows). The main-vector is based on the dominating It-part (here: +pro-sA ) and the side-vectors are based on the contra-sA and the 0-part of the It. Every It “scatters” in three different directions. Even if there is only one main-effect seen superficially, the side-effects have a latent existence.
– The picture in the middle shows how different vectors of two Its work together:
In our example, the main-effects and the side-effects of the two Its potentiate in a way that creates compression.
The top compression has a positive connotation (such as a positive condition), the middle has a negative connotation (negative condition), and the bottom compression has a 0 connotation (deficit).
– The right picture illustrates how the situation within a person can be imagined:
The two Its (*) that are located in the absolute sphere of a person (the Self) cause the described dysfunctions or disorders in the relative-sphere.

Spreading and compression are illustrated as 3 stones thrown into water.
They cause “spreading” as well as overlapping (“compression”).
There are also different centers and distortions.
In a figurative sense, one can say that symptoms develop where the “waves” overlap. And that their origin and location (type of symptom) also depends on the “water quality” (condition of the system) and the shore (environmental conditions) on which the waves are reflected.

Spreading and Compression in More Detail

In the following graphic I tried to explain the effects of spreading and compression in the example of the absolutization in aspect 14 (truth / lie).
Notes:
1. Here are shown only some aspects.¹³⁵
2. In itself, the spreading actions come from attitudes (ideologies) that are not listed here but are listed in the Summary table in column E.

Explanations of Table

About spreading

In the left column of the chart, the different aspects are listed and it is being illustrated, how the absolutization of aspect 14 causes potential factors of spreading on all of the other aspects.
It can be differentiated between a main vector and many side-vectors.
Examples
Frank lies to John. According to aspect 14, John will experience a disturbance of truth. Since the lie hurts his self-sphere, the “whole John” is affected. This means that it is not only the truth disturbance that develops in John, but (at least potentially) a disturbance of the entire psychic sphere (all aspects): a more or less severe disturbance of his ego, his relationships, his inner structures and psychic conditions, his possessions, possibilities, orders, orientations, freedom, success, reality, behavior, information, values, qualities, past, time, perspective, love, protection and security (and so on). These aspects are affected in different ways. This becomes quite clear when we specify what exactly Frank’s lie was. Suppose Frank lied when he said: “John, your wife is cheating on you! John will not only internalize the lie itself, but it will also affect his relationship and intimacy with his wife. He is also likely to feel worthless, sad, sense some kind of loss, worry about the future, become more tense, dwell on the past, etc. As mentioned earlier, these possibilities are presented in a simple way, as if the lie were affecting a defenseless, uncritical John. However, an affected person will have some defense mechanisms or solutions that determine what is defended, internalized, or resolved. When you see how difficult it is to analyze such a simple example, you realize how complicated such events are in reality.
2. A woman is told by a doctor that she has cancer. If this information becomes absolutely relevant to her, it will affect the whole person, all the PR aspects, and it will cause certain changes and reactions (as shown in the table above).
3. As mentioned above, it could also be illustrated how all ideologies affect all aspects (if they are defined as absolutized ideas).

On the right hand side of the “possibilities of spreading”, I marked a gray column with ~. This column symbolizes that the spreading factor meets an (usually) unknown personal so-being (genes, experiences, predisposition) that also determines the characteristics and the dynamics. Due to the individual variety I can mention it only briefly.

About compression

On the right side of the chart are the dysfunctions and second-rate actions of aspect 14, as they can develop as a result of absolutizations. Focusing on the first example, they are usually caused by an absolutized lie, but can also be caused by any other aspect = “compression”.
Another example: If we start with sexual impotence, it cannot only be caused directly by disturbances in this aspect (here Asp. 2o), but also by disturbances in all other aspects – e.g. by an ego disturbance, by a relationship disturbance, by organic disturbances, by disturbances of state or of the senses, by misconditioning, by misorientation, by inhibitions, etc. The consequences of compression become very clear when we look at the possible causes of anxiety disorders.
But the same mechanism seems to me to be present in most psychogenic illnesses.

The purpose of the next graph is to show that the absolute value of relative values does not only lead to a disturbance of these values per se (2nd column), but strictly speaking it leads either to the loss of a feature (4th column) or to “positive” quasi-hyper-features (5th column).
Why is this?
Relative attributes (and most of them are) are never completely unique, otherwise they would be absolute attributes. In terms of the quality of relative traits, this means that no relative trait is exclusively positive or negative, but has both positive and negative components (albeit in varying degrees). In other words, an absolutization never has only negative but also costly positive quasi-hyperconsequences, which is why the word positive is in quotes.
Thus, ideologies and dogmas and their consequences are not bad per se, but play a thoroughly positive, albeit seductive and costly role (especially at the beginning or in emergency situations). As the chart shows, moralism is not only negative, but can give the person support, identity, self-esteem, courage, security, defense, order and all other positive aspects.

About the Lack of Specificity of the Causes and Consequences

I am convinced that the rather great lack of specificity of the Causes of mental disorders is also the reason for the lack of specificity of the theories that try to explain the various psychic/psychosomatic illnesses. They seem to be interchangeable at a certain point, as can be seen when comparing theories of the genesis of various illnesses such as anorexia, rheumatism, depression, fibromyalgia, migraine, stuttering, etc. One could call it the law of the incompleteness of psychological knowledge and the discriminability of the causes of psychological phenomena. (See also the opinion of A.R. Brunoni below). I see a great similarity, if not even common roots, in the incompleteness theorems of K. Gödel. ¹³⁶
I also see parallels to the theory of spectrum disorders. ¹³⁷

A Brief Derivation of Some Exemplary Symptoms/ Illnesses

A sketchy superficial attempt to derive symptoms/illnesses from simple preconditions. Examples:
• Fear, caused by:
    1. losing +sA, or fear of its disadvantages.
    2. occurrence of ‒sA.
    3. – of 0.
If something becomes +sA, then I will be scared that I cannot fulfill its demands or that I could lose it. If something becomes ‒sA, I will be scared that it will become. If something becomes 0, I will be scared that I have nothing at all.
• Schizophrenia: If splittings are in the foreground, especially if one or more ambivalent Its determine the person for a longer time. (Otherwise see Causes for schizophrenia in ‘Psychiatry’).
• Acoustic hallucinations: `P² listens too much to what other P’s say´. P² hears voices of the `homunculus’. (For details, see Hallucinations).
• Eating disorders: By absolutizing in the areas of reception and possession in general and eating and similar topics specifically.
• Depression: loss of +sA, while ‒sA or s0 are dominating.
• Mania: Absence of ‒sA, s0 and +A, while +sA (that P is identified with) is dominating.
• Obsessive-compulsive disorder: only if certain +sA are being fulfilled and ‒sA are being fended, the patient will feel secure.
(Further see part `Psychiatry´)

Interpretation of Symptoms

Summary: Psychic symptoms are usually ambiguous, sometimes equivocal and contradictory. That is, they usually have a pro and a contra meaning. Therefore, the opposite interpretation of a symptom is also very likely.

Role and Meaning of Illness and Health

                    “I believe that diseases are keys that can open certain gates for us. I believe there exist
                    certain gates which only disease can open. […]
                    And perhaps illness shuts us off from certain truths but health cuts us off from other truths.” André Gide

Remarks and Hypotheses

Regarding the role and meaning of illness and health, I make the following hypotheses:

Suffering/illness/symptoms and wellness/health are related.
Each of these Relatives can objectively have a positive or negative (or 0) meaning/relevance.
Subjective feelings and objective situations are often not congruent.
Suffering/illness or wellbeing/health, which themselves function as sA, may have qualitatively equal effects/consequences or opposite and paradoxical effects/consequences.
To gain a +sA, or to fend off a ‒sA, P may sacrifice his/her health.
At a high cost, illness may save us from the excessive demands of sA. Illness may force us to do what we are too scared to do (or have no will): to relativize the power of the sA. ¹³⁸

Good Illnesses – Bad Healths?

Some examples

– For + suffering: Many crises, such as umbilical cord clamping, birth pains, separation pains, pain after surgery, withdrawal, rehab, compassion.
– Bad health: When it comes at the expense of others or must be achieved at all costs.

Similar: Actual suffering and substitute-suffering or two kind of sufferings.

Is there ‘actual’ and ‘non-actual’ suffering/illness?
• Actual suffering (suffering¹). Actual = usually fateful, guiltless (regarding the affected person).
• Substitute-suffering = indirect, shifted, senseless, unnecessary or guilty suffering. Too much suffering of the relatively negative.
Or suffering because it is profitable (→ Morbid gain).
C.G. Jung came up with the hypothesis: “Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering”. Neuroses would be suffering from the nonactual. So whoever avoids actual suffering will face compensatory suffering. With my words: Substitute suffering occurs when the It’s demands (and the It demands a lot) are not met, and therefore the It punishes the person. These costs, usually in the form of a symptom or an illness, also mean a partial self-abandonment of P². That is, P² has to sacrifice a part of the Self in order to satisfy the It.
But: In the long run, the substitute suffering will be greater than the actual suffering. This also means: Accepting the actual suffering will greatly reduce the substitute suffering.(→ First A then B)
“More stress than in Auschwitz there was hardly anywhere else, and right there were the typical psychosomatic diseases that are so much taken for stress-related, virtually disappeared from the earth.”¹³⁹

Do Illnesses Make Sense?

An additional question to the one just discussed is whether diseases/symptoms have meaning.
Disease is relative. Therefore, I believe it can only be either relatively meaningful or relatively meaningless.
This would be difficult to determine in individual cases.
A few examples will illustrate the difficulty of determination:
When the dentist causes us pain by pulling out a tooth, it is meaningful pain.
When a woman gives birth to a child, she will experience it as a very meaningful event. But if a woman is raped, that pain/suffering becomes meaningless to me. ¹⁴⁰ Conversely, not every kind of well-being or health is good or meaningful. A drug addict who has run out of drugs will feel better when he gets new drugs. A workaholic will feel better the more he has to do, even if it is not reasonable.
Symptoms based on the +A are usually very reasonable, such as withdrawal symptoms or warning signs of excessive demands (such as burnout).
The symptoms and illnesses that are the focus of this publication and that are caused by inversion seem to be neither absolutely reasonable nor senseless. In most cases, they are expressions of emergency or substitute solutions, accompanied by substitute suffering, and thus also by a kind of “substitute sense/reason”.

Morbid Gain

Definition: gain, that a sick person receives from his/her illness. ¹⁴¹
Usual classification: (based on S. Freud)
Primary morbid gain: inner/subjective gain.
Secondary morbid gain: outer/objective gain (retirement, rest).
Tertiary morbid gain: gain for the environment of the ill person.

I distinguish:
1) normal morbid gain
2) second-rate, “neurotic” morbid gain.

About 1) “Normal” morbid gain:
Based on the hypothesis that no Relative is absolutely positive or absolutely negative, it is also normal for illness to have a positive part. This case is very common. One is sick and stays at home, does not have to work and is probably treated well, and so on. This is normal, and there is no need for treatment.
About 2) The point here is that disease or its causes (like sA and Its) have paradoxically become too positive, too necessary, too absolute. Because subjectively it brings more advantages than disadvantages to the person affected. It can be compared to the morbid gain identified by S. Freud. This second-rate or “neurotic” morbid gain (which does not mean that it is found only when neuroses appear) occurs mostly when illnesses or their causes have no relative but absolute importance and have therefore become sA. This means that the person needs the benefits of the illness or sA/its to maintain mental stability. Thus they gain importance and power. From the point of view of P², it prevents worse (loss of +sA/ appearance of -sA). With the illness, P² has an alibi for the demands of It/sA. With the sacrifice of health, the subjectively best can be maintained and the subjectively worst can be avoided. The illness allows P² to be excused and reconciled with sA. A big disadvantage, however, is that the consequences of the inversion remain. These are mainly: partial self-abandonment and further illness.¹⁴²
Morbid gain in detail: Illness can allow a person to find meaning in life (if it cannot be found without illness); illness can allow one to find an identity (if it cannot be found without illness); illness can provide security (one is used to the role of patient, so it provides security); illness can allow one to gain autonomy; Disease can make life easier (protecting you from demands and overwork); Disease can give you more time; Disease can become an important weapon; Disease can allow you to manipulate people; Disease can cause you to receive more love and attention from others; Disease can give you more freedom; ¹⁴³ Illness may allow one’s will to prevail; illness may allow one to live out aggression or other negative feelings; illness may allow one to cling to old habits; illness may bring more direction and order to one’s life. Illness often has an alibi function and is a relieving mechanism of self-punishment to be free of real (or imagined) guilt. Illness can create an imbalance within the person/system that is costly, etc.

Illness as a protection against the negative* can also be understood as a mirror image, of the ‘+list’ above. Illness can be a protection against the meaninglessness of life; illness can be a protection against loss of identity and alienation; illness can be a protection against insecurity, dependence, and loss of Self² or even loss of life!¹⁴⁴ ¹⁴⁵

The listings make it clearer that the (“neurotic”) morbid gain is only a substitute gain/protection of high cost. However, it is also an emergency solution that can save one’s life in an emergency situation. Therefore, it should not be considered taboo.
An example: An anorexic young woman compensates for her dependence on her parents by using her illness to dominate her parents, thus securing a substitute independence. At the same time, parental dominance and control remain intact. On the other hand, questionable independence on the one hand and questionable dominance on the other maintain the balance with the costs of the illness. A change in the role of one member of the system would create a crisis, which is normal in this process of detachment. But since, like any crisis, it does not automatically end in a positive emergence or solution, there is also the risk of failure, and those involved will then avoid these crises, but someone will have to pay the price.

Can God Make People Sick?

Obviously there is a connection between God and mental health, because people who believe that they are absolutely loved and that nothing can happen to them are more resilient. But even the most devout can get sick.
Even God can cause suffering or even make someone sick, although rarely.
Why is that?
The positive Absolute is God, not health and well-being, just as suffering and sickness are not absolutely negative. They are Relativa. This means that the relative positive (health, happiness, etc.) can also be negative, and the relative negative (sickness, suffering, etc.) can also be positive. And this also means that positive sickness, suffering, etc. can come from the positive Absolute, i.e. God, and negative health, happiness, etc. can come from the negative Absolute.(‒A). But since health and illness are predominantly positive resp. negative, that´s why the origin of the predominant negative from the absolute positive (God¹) resp. the origin of the predominant positive from the absolute negative (−A) is the exception.
These abstract assumptions also find their concrete form in human relationships. If we see the relationship between God¹and us like a love relationship between people, it becomes clear that negative feelings / suffering / or even injuries can also come from a loving person, although the motivation behind it is a positive one. This motivation from God¹is just as difficult for us humans to recognize as our children often fail to recognize the importance of frustration or punishment. Both the killer and the surgeon are hurting us, even though their motives are completely opposite. On the one hand, you can tell someone bitter truths and hurt them but help them; on the other hand, you can spoil someone and hurt them. False compassion, the avoidance of suffering, the absolutizing of health and well-being, etc., are as questionable as their opposite. Equally questionable are some “Christian” views that see every suffering or illness as a punishment from God, or those that postulate an unconditional connection between God and healing. Even though God does not cause “negative suffering,” He obviously allows it, and we will discuss the reasons for this in the next section, “Theodicy”.

God and Evil – a New Theodicy

How can we know what is life and death if we don’t know who God is?
[Based on Confucius: “If we don’t know life, how can we know death?”]

Dedicated to my grandson Felix.

Theodicy = theós ‚God‘ and díkē ‚justice‘ = justification and vindication of God.

Theodicy is an attempt to answer the question of why a good and all-powerful God permits the occurrence of evil. Or: Why God does not answer some prayers? Can God be justified? (Theodicy).
The problem of theodicy is one of the most important problems of theology, and perhaps of humanity in general. Because, as with all metaphysical problems, a solution in the scientific sense is not possible – I try to give a credible explanations.

Theologians usually distinguish between the following “evils”:
1. The “moral evils” (what people do to themselves)
2. The “natural evils” (natural disasters, transience)

Main sources:¹⁴⁶

On the other hand, there are painful but appropriately positive circumstances, such as cord-cutting processes, “growing pains,” meaningful frustrations, and so on. This means that we experience some things as painful even though they are beneficial to us. Therefore, it would be wrong for God or parents to remove this “positive suffering” from children.
It should also be remembered that from God’s point of view, or according to the Christian faith, all earthly suffering, including death, is ultimately (!) only of relative importance. Therefore, God only needed a relative justification, which is what I am trying to do here.

See `Relativity of Illness and Health (resp. Death and Life)´ and `Role and Meaning of Illness and Health´.

1. The “moral evils”

Regarding the cause of “moral evils,” theologians largely agree that they are the result of people’s mistakes/sins, since God has given people the freedom to act in this way. (the “free will defense”). Here God seems justified because it is a sign of His love for us when He gives us the freedom to do evil against His will, for a relationship without freedom of choice is not love.

2. The “natural evils”.

This means that suffering is not directly caused by man, but by natural disasters, impermanence, some diseases, and so on. – In other words, evils that are already given to man and are present everywhere in nature.
Obviously, theology has no satisfactory answer here.
[Note: My understanding of God does not always agree with official theology.]

My hypothesis about God’s justification:

Like Adams and Eves, we are responsible for “natural evils.
How so?
If you want to solve the problem of theodicy, I think you need a concept other than our usual concept of space and time. If God exists, then He is above the laws of space and time.
Similar Ludwig Wittgenstein: “The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time.“¹⁴⁷ The quotations from B. Russel, A. Whitehead and K. Goedel mentioned in the section `First-rate solutions´ can also be interpreted in this way. Didn’t Jesus also have a different concept of space and time than usual when he said: “I was before Abraham” or “I was with God from the beginning”? And if so, then we must look for the solution of the theodicy problem outside the known laws of nature. But if we seek the solution to the theodicy problem only within our human limitations, such as our minds, then we will not find an answer to the great ultimate questions. Only when we go beyond these limits can we find credible, if not provable, answers. Physics has also expanded our horizons with the theory of relativity and quantum entanglement, challenging many of our previous findings.
→¹⁴⁸

Therefore, my attempt at explanation is based on other than our previous ideas of space, time, and our existence, even though this contradicts our sense of a linear progression of time and a clear spatial allocation.
If we disregard our previous conceptions, as physicists do, then the idea is to interpret us and our existence in a meta-temporal and meta-spatial way, and to see Adam (Hebrew “man”) and Eve not as two concrete individuals in the former paradise, but as prototypes or “archetypes” representing every single person who, like them, has separated from God and thus lost his paradisiacal original state / has left paradise and now lives in a world that also contains “natural evils”. When and where we have separated from God, I can well imagine other space-time concepts (independent of time in a parallel kingdom of God / “paradise”? “Parallel Universe”?).

Hints
1. This assumption is somewhat similar to the Many-Worlds-Theory of Everett (A. Loichinger) and the ideas of reincarnation in Buddhism and Hinduism – with the crucial difference, however, that Christianity does not know of overwhelming, seemingly endless reincarnations.
2. Christians have certain ideas about what comes after death. But why not what was before the birth?]

So I assume that every human being has a pre- or parallel existence beyond our world. This means that we have another existence besides our earthly existence, which is called Adam and Eve in the Bible, with which we are connected like a quantum entanglement.

Quantum entanglement proves that something that belongs together can form a unit despite the greatest distances and time differences. Aren’t our thoughts also free of space and time? Can’t two people be connected in thought? Don’t we think too materialistically, so that another, broader view remains closed to us? In any case, I can identify very well with Adam. And who cannot? Don’t we continue to eat from the apple of paradise with every sin?
(Maybe the angels are the ones who did not eat the apple like Adam and Eve and are therefore still in paradise).

And God gives us the freedom to choose between good and evil – as I said, as a sign of His love for us.
If we identify with “Adam” and “Eve” in this way, then we, and not God, are responsible for both the moral and the “natural evil” – and God would be justified. God is justified – according to this concept – because His omnipotence and unlimited love do not contradict our suffering. In my opinion, only such an interpretation, starting from a meta-temporal and meta-spatial perspective, can explain the contradictions between God’s omnipotence and love on the one hand and “natural evils” on the other, which can also serve as “evidence” for such a hypothesis.
One could also say “upside down”: God’s justification also makes it credible that something like many or parallel worlds/existences exist.

If, according to this hypothesis, we humans are guilty of all evils and Jesus forgives all guilt, the question remains why we still suffer even though our guilt has been forgiven.
The guilt is gone, but not the consequences. Where is the Lord’s grace in this?

I think it is true that God forgives sins. But it is also true that people feel the negative consequences. Isn’t that true in any love relationship? Even lovers would make a mistake if they did not forgive guilt, but they would also make a mistake if they conveyed that guilt does not matter. So isn’t it right to become aware of our lies and deceptions? If our negative actions had no noticeable consequences, what would be the case? We’d probably be lost in chaos.
God allows freedom of choice. He does not coerce and disenfranchise – like any lover – even if it involves suffering. Even when God tolerates suffering, He does not leave us alone. I believe that even today God goes to the extreme limits of love to minimize our suffering – just as he did in Jesus. Is this proof of His unconditional love not enough for us? Even if it is different from what I suspect, it is not because of God’s lack of goodness, but because of our lack of faith or short-sightedness or lack of imagination that some causes of suffering remain hidden from us. Must God justify Himself to us when it is we who need justification?

Concrete Examples (Hölderlin, Nietzsche…)

Note
In the unabridged German version, I have described this topic on Hölderlin in more detail. But even there, as here because of the complex problem, there are only some thoughts relating to this work.

Hölderlin and Nietzsche are for me typical examples of people who got sick because of various strange Absolutes.
Especially Stefan Zweig¹⁴⁹ described impressively the development of madness in Hölderlin´s and Nietzsche’s life. The term ‘demon’ of Zweig is largely the same as the `strange Absolute’ of this work.
Werner Ross also describes very accurately Nietzsche’s life and the genesis of his psychosis. ¹⁵⁰
Both authors’ analyses of the development of Hölderlin’s and Nietzsche’s psychoses agree with my metapsychiatric hypotheses, even if the terminology is partly different. If one also compares the authors’ statements about Hölderlin’s and Nietzsche’s symptoms with the data in the columns ‘It-Effects and Results’ of the Summary table, one finds most of them there again.
When Nietzsche’s friend Erwin Rohde writes about him: “An indescribable atmosphere of strangeness, something completely strange at that time, surrounded him … As if he came from a country where no one else lived.” ¹⁵¹ – this is what I name ‘strange person’ here.
When Nietzsche finally went insane, in the end, according to the hypotheses of this work, he lacked an Absolute that could compensate or correct the strange Absolutes with their contradictions.
Hölderlin, Nietzsche and many other psychotic people seem to me like “Yin-Yang-people” rolling into the abyss and are broken due to their contradictions – just as I described in the section Reversal into the opposite .

What they ultimately lacked, according to the hypotheses of this work, was an Absolute that could compensate or correct the strange Absolutes with their contradictions. Did not Nietzsche see it similarly when he wrote: “But we also feel that we are too weak … and that we are not the people to whom universal nature looks as her redeemers … we must be lifted up – and who are they who will lift us up?“¹⁵²
Regarding Hölderlin, Juan J. López-Ibor and María I López-Ibor adopt in their publication “Romanticism and Schizophrenia” similar views. ¹⁵³

PSYCHIATRY

Abstract

First, here I follow my concept of metapsychology and psychology. I use language patterns and meanings to represent metapsychological and psychological patterns and meanings.
Second, this part is based on the explanations of the `New Metapsychiatry’ part. There, the focus is on the hypothesis that the main causes of disturbances of psychologically relevant facts in general, and of mental illnesses in particular, are Inversions of fundamental meanings of our existence.
Note: The `Summary table ´ offers a very compressed textual and tabular overview.

Causes of mental disorders

For like the plant does not take root in its own soil,
the soul of a mortal will quickly die.“ F. Hölderlin ¹⁵⁴.

Preliminary remarks:

In general to causes, see on `Causes and Results´ in Metapsychology.
Disease should not be interpreted solely as the result of bad behavior!
Disease should not be seen as an absolute evil that must be destroyed.
Anyone can become ill (mentally and physically).
The causes of disease are similar to the causes of misfortune: Any misfortune can happen to anyone, but with different probabilities. A person can become ill through no fault of his own or through no fault of his own.

¹⁵⁵

Underlying Hypotheses

I repeat briefly the most important:
      1. Illness and health are of relative importance.
      2. Illness is not absolutely negative and health is not absolutely positive. As Relatives, illness and health have both, positive and negative sides.
      3. The most frequent primary (!) causes of illness are ´Inversions ´. ¹⁵⁶ Inversion means that fundamental reversals of meaning occur through the inversion of Absolute, Relative, and Nothing. Such inversions of meaning arise primarily from attitudes that claim an absoluteness that excludes other attitudes. Isms’ or ideologies are typical examples.
Of course, mental disorders can also be caused secondarily by physical disorders (“secondary causes”).
4. Causes of mental disorders are rarely to be found only in the person himself, but in all spheres that affect him. A similar statement can be found in various references discussing the genesis of many mental disorders: “The genesis is thought to be multifactorial, with genetic, neurobiological, and psychosocial factors constituting the relevant pathogenic causes.
The proportion of each factor is different in each case. I tend to focus on the spiritual spheres because I am also convinced that this is where the most effective therapies are to be found. This is usually not the case when one tries to influence only the biological-material sphere (brain, genes), usually by using psychotropic drugs. ¹⁵⁷.

MENTAL DISORDERS FROM THE BIOGRAPHICAL PERSPECTIVE

Beginning

“And children grow up with deep eyes;
They know nothing; they grow up and die.” Hugo von Hofmannsthal

The history of mental disorders usually begins in childhood or, I believe, even before birth. It is determined by the different attitudes that the parents or the environment transmit to the child or that the child later chooses. All these attitudes are ultimately based on different Absolutes. Whatever the parents and the environment of the child find absolutely important, they will transmit to the child. This usually happens unconsciously and often in seemingly unremarkable everyday situations. This Absolute can be a true Absolute or a strange Absolute. Only the first will really suit the child, while the second may be the cause of later mental disorders. Then the child may not be able to freely develop its personality. To be more precise, the self will not be strong and independent. We have defined the ” Self ” as an individual, unique core of personality.
I recall the main characteristics of the positive self: It is the actual and existential core of the person. It is unique and irreplaceable. It is the most important. It is independent at its core. It has something absolute, something sacred about it. It is lovable in an unconditional way (loved by God). It is made to exist forever. It is indestructible. It is a gift (it is already given to a person and does not have to be earned). It lives by itself. Every person has the right to live with such a Self. I will define every other basis of life as strange Self (sS), ‘It’ or complex.

The more the parents absolutize something relative, the more the basis of life is relativized and weakened. In this situation, what was originally only relatively right and good, because it was absolutized, must be fulfilled at all costs and what was originally only relatively wrong and evil, because it was absolutized, must be fended off and avoided at all costs. (→ Defense-mechanisms). Then, parents, as well as the children, feel like it is about all or nothing, about being or not being.
Often the cause is misunderstood love when parents transfer such attitudes to their child(ren). They want to give their child orientation, but they interfere with the child’s emotional and spiritual development when they absolutize Relatives, because the Self is supposed to be based on the actual Absolute [This refers to the +A and its synonyms.] It needs a substantial ground – like a seed is put on solid ground so that it can grow freely.

The Self not only wants to be strong, independent, and precious, it also wants to be irreplaceable, to be itself, whatever it really is. This means that every human being deeply longs for a true Absolute – to be loved for oneself and to develop freely on the basis of that love. When I say “free development,” I do not mean lack of direction. The child should develop in a certain direction. Like a plant growing towards the light, towards the sun. Without any kind of constraint or compulsion. Just as the sun does not always stay in one place, but shines on us with an enormous range. The parents/environment are not necessarily the light, because every person/environment also spreads negative influences: In all families there are (mostly unconscious) fixed ideas, taboos, strict principles, unspoken oaths, and so on. Who does not know sentences like: “Boys don’t cry!”, “A good child listens to his parents!”, “Don’t you dare contradict me!”, “A family must stick together!”, and many more. It can be said that it is not love that speaks at this point, but an imperative.
(For the sake of simplicity, the parents will be named here as the most important reference persons. In reality, the child is exposed to many other influences, such as environmental influences and trauma that have nothing to do with the parents).

The initial situation is often in such a way that parents or the environment of the mentally ill people are also caught in Inversions. Therefore, they themselves lack freedom/independence and are confronted with many unresolved problems. Their view of the world is usually narrow, fearful, and fixated. Some seem strong on the outside, and some may be strong, but they are overburdened. What they usually lack is a free, authentic, absolute Self that can tolerate and protect a weak, fearful, flawed Ego. Instead, one must be strong, brave, and good – and the weak Ego will be hidden by fear and shame. For parents, a world different from their own, a larger and more independent world, is full of danger because they cannot control it. And to be honest, which parent is not affected?

The mental problems within a family can be compared to debts: Families struggling with mental disorders usually have a mental “debt. Often, one family member pays this debt by sacrificing his or her health, while others remain healthy. We will see later why this is so. One thing is for sure: It is mainly a matter of good or bad luck whether a person becomes ill or not.
As we have already said: The child needs a stable foundation, an invulnerable core, a real, good Absolute, and not something relative, but an Absolute that is not based on the fulfillment of requirements, but one that unconditionally loves, protects, and guides the child to enable normal psychic development. Such an Absolute would be the unconditional love of both parents. But if they cannot give enough love – usually because they have not experienced it themselves – the child’s development is threatened. If the child is unlucky, its Self is in danger of going down. Certain living conditions, personal misfortunes, traumatizations also play a big role, because they can cause certain SA. Usually the child is too young to understand what is happening to him and is unable to fight it. But there is an unconscious mechanism that protects the child in this dangerous situation. A mechanism that comes at a high price. The child identifies with the parent’s Self. It adapts excessively.
That leads us to the second act:

Overadaptation or Enmity

To save its Self, the child identifies with the parents. Above all, the child takes on that which is of absolute importance to the parents. Collective Absolutes emerge. ¹⁵⁸

The imprint created is like a bar code with black (negative), white (positive), or black and white (ambivalent) strange Selves (or defects not shown here). There is an analogy with genetic imprinting: the child adapts mainly to what the parents determine as good* and bad*. ¹⁵⁹ – whatever has to be fulfilled and achieved (the good*, the ideal*) and whatever has to be avoided (the bad*, the taboo*).

Since the parents have absolutized Relatives, the parents and the child have the feeling it is not just about something Relative but about all, about the Absolute, about being or not being. In normal development, the child also adapts to the parents and identifies with their view of the world. However, he or she has the freedom to let go of what does not fit with his or her identity, desires, or perceptions without being punished. Yes, children and teenagers have to question their parents absolutely and radically in order to find themselves. Then they can choose what does or does not match their own identity and perception. ¹⁶⁰ They retain existential freedom of choice.
However, wherever the Self of the parents does not match the own Self, wherever the child experiences it as strange-I or strange Self, there will be a central, existential and uncontrollable conflict within the child.

The strength of this conflict becomes apparent when we consider that it is about something that is experienced as absolute by those involved. However, the false Absolute is strange to the Self. These strange parts are unresolved complexes (like cuckoo eggs) within the Self and suppress the own parts. In these parts, the Ego is not master in its own house. It has to share its innermost, its own, with something strange, perhaps even hostile. This is the price the child has to pay unconsciously to save itself.
On the other hand, the child also has some advantages in taking over the Absolutes/ Selves of the parents: The child does not want to be in conflict with the parent/ environment. It can rely on these internalized parts and values and finds some strength and identity, even if they are relative and strange. The child is trapped in a golden cage. It still (unconsciously) agrees to stay in this cage in order to be protected. This creates a kind of emergency solution for the child: Better to have a strange Self than no Self. Here is already programmed what we find later in mental illness: The division and depression of the Self by strange parts of the Self. ¹⁶¹ In this way, such children are deprived of their first-ranking Absolute and Self. They are then misused as aids, as objects of the parents or the environment.

T. Moser on this: “Many mothers need obedient children in order to organize their own inner chaos. Or they need the children to have an echo in their empty lives. Or they need them to heal their own self-hatred by planning the child’s future. The emotional life of the child turns over (dies) like an over-fertilized lake that can no longer regenerate itself. The person who must be the pride of his parents never knows if he is really loved: there are always demands or even blackmail. What emerges is what Winnicott called the “false self. This false self takes on the unconscious expectations of the parents. The more important the child is as a crutch for the parents, the greater the fear when later, in a relationship or in therapy, the child is confronted with the longed-for and at the same time terrifying possibility of being questioned: Who are you really? The one who has been the pride of his parents because of the expected success or the presentable dressage, has to achieve more and more and try to adapt in order to avoid panic and depression when the external recognition fails.” ¹⁶²

Karen Horney described it similarly. “A child suffers from primal anxiety … when it has parents whose own neurotic conflicts prevent them from offering the child the basic acceptance necessary for the development of its autonomous self. In the early years of childhood, when the child sees its parents as omnipotent, parental disapproval or rejection can only lead the child to conclude that there is something terribly wrong with it. In order to get rid of the primal fear and receive the essential acceptance and love of its parents, the child realizes that it must become different; it channels its energies away from self-awareness, away from its personal potential, and develops a construct of an idealized self-image – a possibility of how it must become in order to survive and avoid the primal fear.” ¹⁶³
Children usually have no chance to fight against the negative effects of the strange Absolutes/Its. On the contrary, they unconsciously confirm these attitudes, especially since they are often not false, but “only” exaggerated and one-sided. In addition, the child often believes that the parent’s behavior is correct and its own behavior is wrong, so it suppresses its own negative feelings toward the parent and believes that it must be punished. Thus, the child is drawn into a kind of vicious circle in which the appearance of symptoms is a typical “solution”. The situation is exacerbated when the child feels responsible for the parent’s problems. This is almost always the case. Even if the child is not able to understand and name the parent’s problems, the child still has an idea of what they are and tries to help them by sacrificing his or her Self. The child begins to act like a parent to his or her own parents and becomes completely overwhelmed with this role, even if only unconsciously (parentification). In the worst case, these children are mentally (and perhaps physically) like senile children. They are blocked in their free development and are confronted with problems that even their adult parents could not solve.¹⁶⁴
The worst thing that could happen is that the child experiences that it has to give up its own Self in order to receive recognition and love. The child will despise or even hate itself and love the parents too much, even though it unconsciously hates the parents as well. However, it will realize that the parents are also caught up in the game, and it will try to love them even more. It’s an endless cycle, and no one knows how to stop it.

The graphic illustrates how the parental ideals*, taboos* and their emptinesses overload and dominate the child’s actual Self. However, they also stabilize the child, since the child’s Self does not have enough stability on its own.

As I said, there are also overadaptations in so-called normal development that are not necessarily needed by parents. Likewise, during normal development there are always rebellions and resistance against the parents, which are very important for the child’s self-discovery and are, in the best case, accepted by the parents. ¹⁶⁵

There will be no disturbance if the child experiences a basic love from its parents and is thus able to relativize the demands of sA. The child will not only be able to buffer the sA through this love, but will be able to deal with it from a safe position. The child will learn at an early age not to absolutize pleasure and displeasure and will be much better prepared for later life. But “A child’s independence is too great a risk for some parents’ shaky balance.” [J. Greenberg, p 27].

The more the parents depend on something, the greater the risk for them. Then there will be a strong polarization of the differences and a fight against each other, an either this or that, a pro or contra, a black or white way of thinking, a win or lose behavior. The child then bites into the parents and the parents bite into the child. In addition, as I said, parents often transfer their own unresolved issues onto the child. One parent may form a coalition with the child against the other parent, other family members may become involved, and so on.
Processes take place that are all the more difficult and inscrutable because they are hardly or not at all conscious to the person involved. ¹⁶⁶
Whatever it was, the child’s self usually remains suppressed, and the enmity with the parents does not lead to real independence. The child’s dependence continues. This means that the situation is the same whether the child does what the parents want or whether the child does the exact opposite of what the parents want. Either way, the parent remains in control. However, the period of rebellion is a very important step in the right direction that sometimes does not occur for many years (or ever). Often, over-adaptation and rebellion alternate – a basic pattern that can be found in future relationships unless a deeper solution is found. Often there will be over-adapted and opposing (pro and con) parts of the strange Self at the same time, ¹⁶⁷– unless a solution has been found. It is usually a matter of time before the child’s power is no longer strong enough to pay the constant tribute, though this may take several years. Whenever this point is reached, there will be a crisis, which will be explained in the next chapter.

Crisis and Falling Ill

„Each torpid turn of the world has such disinherited children,
to whom no longer what´s been, and not yet what´s coming belongs.”
R.M. Rilke (Duino Elegies, VII,63-4)

The cause of the crisis is the conflict between the person’s real Self and the demands of the other Selves, the conflict between the legitimate desires for self-determination and the opposing forces. These opposing forces exist in the form of real existent persons (usually parents), but also in the form of internalized parts. That is, the person increasingly imposes the strange demands on himself because he considers them to be his own. The requirements consist of fulfilling the +sA and avoiding/ fending the ‒sA. Man is then like a swimmer who must keep moving in order not to drown. The main characteristics of the requirements are the many “musts”. First of all, you must be good and you must not be bad! In these cases, it does not matter whether what is considered good is really good and bad is really bad. For even the truly good may have become bad or ambivalent under duress. Likewise, the truly bad can be experienced well.

Danger of losing the unstable mental balance due to additional mental strain or weakening of the person.
The width of the base that maintains balance is equal to the compensating power of the Self!

A crisis usually occurs when a person is exposed to additional demands. These can be major events (starting work, an unhappy love affair, death or other trauma, etc.). Often, however, there are small triggers that cause the whole system to become unbalanced, and the crisis comes out of nowhere and cannot be explained.
E.g.,: Experience of a schizophrenic patient:
The “gods [+*] were laughing, golden personages … like guardian spirits. But something changed, and Yr was transformed from a source of beauty and guardianship to one of fear and pain [‒*]. Slowly Deborah was forced to assuage and placate, to spin from the queen-ship of a bright and comforting Yr to prison in its darker places.” ¹⁶⁸
See also: Reversal into the opposite

This diagram illustrates the different phases of the dynamic between the person (P) and the dominating It/sA.
Phase 1 on the far left shows how the person interacts “positively” with the It/sA, even though the person is already dominated by the It/sA: P fulfills the requirements of the It/sA and receives extremely strong positive feedback (e.g., recognition).
Phase 2 (in the middle) shows: Things get worse when the demands of the It/sA become too high and/or the person becomes too weak to meet the demands – such as an imbalance of emotional distress and resilience. The person is now being punished by the It/SA.
Phase 3, on the right, is intended to illustrate the dual role of the illness. It protects P from excessive demands. On the other hand, the person remains ill and allows the It/sA to continue to exist

The system decompensates whenever the demands of the It/sA are greater than the compensating forces of the I. More precisely, whenever the demands can no longer be met or the threats can no longer be averted-that is, at the moment when the power of defense and coping is no longer strong enough. But also when the person no longer wants to meet the demands -as a positive crisis! In this situation, the person is back in the old childhood position: he/she feels existentially threatened, it is about being or not being, self or no-self. The old emergency solution no longer works – especially if the parents (or environment) are in crisis themselves, facing similar conflicts that seem unsolvable.
This dilemma can also be described as follows: On the one hand, we desperately need love, but love has also become very dangerous, almost deadly for us, because parental love has become associated with conditions or even exploitation. Therefore, many people seek love, but at the same time fear and avoid it. So the person is stuck in a dilemma because he/she has received a fearful, destructive love. You can compare it to a barefoot person who flees from the ice and walks over hot coals instead of trying to put on his own shoes.

All of this leads to reenactments (inwardly and/or in new relationships) or a compulsion to repeat until the person finds a solution. It is as if the person has to find out if he/she is loved for him/herself or not, no matter what. The situation seems hopeless – but the person is an adult now. Perhaps he/she can now find a deeper solution. What solutions are there? We will find out in the therapy chapters.

PSYCHOSES

Psychoses in General

Psychoses can be divided into three distinct groups: organic psychoses, schizophrenic psychoses, and affective psychoses. This publication focuses on affective and schizophrenic psychoses.
• Affective psychoses are divided into psychotic depression and mania (manic-depressive illness).
• Schizophrenic psychoses (schizophrenia) will be discussed in more detail later.
• Schizoaffective psychoses have symptoms of both groups.
These classifications are somewhat arbitrary – on the other hand, they reflect certain basic patterns that play a role in therapy. But: “In the end, every psychosis is different and must be seen in its individual peculiarity, in its social context and with all its different subjective meanings. Any schematic view leads to standardized treatment. This kind of treatment is not appropriate for psychosis. People who have experienced psychosis are very sensitive and will be offended if they are not seen as individuals and treated with the necessary respect. ¹⁶⁹
A psychosis is always an expression of a severe existential crisis, which may happen to every person. Usually, a large number of different and various factors have to come together to cause a psychosis.

(To causes in general see on `Causes and Results´ and further on `Causes of mental disorders´).

I believe that solving the “mystery of the causes of psychoses” is no more difficult than solving existential crises in general. I am convinced that every (psychogenic) psychosis is curable.

Let me summarize my hypotheses: Psychoses are usually the expression of an inner conflict of the person between opposing Absolutes with a loss of the actual Absolute. As with all other psychogenic illnesses, there are two main conditions: The absolutizing of the Relative and the loss of the actual Absolute with the result of the emergence of strange Selves and self-sacrifice to maintain these strange Selves. The person pays with his own health and the loss of the actual Self to resolve the conflict between the Self and the strange Selves.
To make it easier to understand the emergence of psychosis, I would like to remind you of the following:
The forces of the absolutized Relative and the repression of the actual Absolute change the ego in the following ways in particular:
1. Mainly by dividing and causing disturbances.
2. Mainly oppressing and causing deficiencies.
The mainly splitting forces cause schizophrenia, and the losses due to the oppressive forces cause depressive symptoms.
The arbitrary distinction does not exist in real life, but is a way to make it more understandable. It represents the main symptomatology of these illnesses. There is neither an exclusively schizophrenic pathology nor an exclusively depressive pathology. Therefore, the term schizo-affective psychosis is plausible for mixed forms.

Basic constellation of psychoses, based on strange Self (sS), ) causing splitting (→) and repression (┴). The person is divided at the core into strange Self and actual Self, and the strange Self is further divided into pro-sS, anti-sS, and s0. Each sS is potentially divisive and oppressive. As already mentioned, Karl Jaspers also believed that the division of psychoses into two main classes: manic-depressive and schizophrenic, contains an essential core of truth, since this division, in contrast to previous concepts of illness, has in principle prevailed. ¹⁷⁰

I believe that this `essential core of truth´ can be explained by the above-described basic constellation and also by two fundamental forms of the negative (false and nothing). The two major psychosis groups, depression and schizophrenia, can also be understood as the main consequences of inversions of the Absolute and Relative: nothing (⟶ depression) and false (⟶ schizophrenia).
This basic pattern could also be called “Unitary psychosis”. Joseph Guislain and Albert Zeller suspected this about 200 years ago. K. Leonhard later developed this concept.
One could formulate, as in mathematics: A task can be solved falsely or not, i.e. the result can be wrong or it is missing. In this comparison one could call the + Absolute as the best common denominator, or the best “solver”.
If one done the Relative however to this denominator, then the problem is unsolvable.
In the case of the schizophrenic reactions, in particular, the divergent forces gain the upper hand, which causes in the center of the person splittings, contradictories, double bonds, pinch-mills, paradoxes, or the like. Especially the person is split, fragmented and torn apart in pro- and contra-parts. In the case of depression the s0-part mainly causes a central loss of the first-rate personal – or in case of mania too much of the “good” (*).
S. Freud explained that mental illness is a result of overpowering the Ego by the Id, which causes a separation of the outside world. Mania would be a fusion of Ego and Super-Ego and melancholy would be an oppression of the Ego due to a tormenting Super-ego. ¹⁷¹
This view largely correlates with the concept presented in this publication.
The manifestation of a psychosis takes place if the negative forces of the strange Selves are stronger than the positive forces of the actual Self and other strange Selves. (Mind: the sS as a Relative has positive sides along with the negative ones.)

It is easy to imagine, and comparable to the loss of physical equilibrium, that at some point mental equilibrium is threatened. If the strange self is compared to a crutch that is both helpful and obstructive, the sick person can also be seen as someone who is trying to get rid of the obstructive crutch even though he is not yet strong enough to stand without it. The person loses balance and falls → becomes psychotic. Distinguishing between progressive and regressive psychosis, this is an example of a progressive event because the patient is trying to do the right thing. It would be regressive if he did not want to use the crutch because he overestimated his own abilities. The comparison of a strange Self and a crutch also seems appropriate when it comes to good therapeutic handling: It is not reasonable to take away such a crutch at any cost, nor is it reasonable to use it for much longer than necessary. At present, the second option seems to be the more problematic, because many psychiatrists are too focused on the goal of symptom relief, which causes them to forget that too much help (e.g., too much medication) can lead to a weakening of the person’s self.

The type of sA or sS also has a major impact on what kind of symptom will be caused (schizophrenic, depressive or manic). Misabsolutizations that create a false, strange self are more likely to be schizophrenic, and those that cause the person to be in a state of deficiency or repression are more likely to be depressive.

As mentioned, the strange Selves become independent. They have their own structures and are like something personal. Therefore, they are different from other fleeting phenomena, such as individual thoughts. Because of this, it seems obvious to see and treat them as metabolic disorders or something like that. This idea is not really wrong, but it is too superficial. For me, it is as half right as thinking that impotence is a circulatory or hormonal disorder. We will also find such biological parameters when we talk about psychoses. And I also believe that people will find better drugs for psychoses, just as there are better drugs for impotence. Why not? No doubt a pill would often be a better option than the pain and suffering without it. However, it is and will remain an emergency solution. The impotence or psychosis would be gone, but not the main problems and causes. And they will always reappear somehow and somewhere. They will just be moved to another place. And somebody has to pay for it.
Overall, I see psychosis as a lifestyle in which the Relative dominates the actual Absolute. The not actual dominates the actual, the splitting dominates the wholeness, the object dominates the subject, the non-personal dominates the personal, the strange dominates the own, the second-rate dominates the first-rate, the functional dominates the lively, the strange Self dominates the Self and the strange-I (Ego) dominates the actual I.

Schizophrenia

What is Schizophrenia?

t is estimated that about 45 million people suffer from schizophrenia. ¹⁷²
According to the World Health Organization (WHO), schizophrenia is one of the most expensive diseases in the world.
It is difficult to explain what schizophrenia is, because there is no one schizophrenia.
What is meant by the group of schizophrenia is also an agreement. There are international committees of psychiatrists who have listed certain symptoms as signs of schizophrenia. However, it is against human dignity to call people hebephrenic or psychopathic or anything like that. These terms make it seem as if the negative symptoms define the whole personality of the person. As Karl Kraus said: “One of the most widespread illnesses is diagnosis.”
But what does the term “schizophrenia” mean? How does it affect people? What are the symptoms?
There is a great variety of descriptions of the experiences of schizophrenic people. I think the following examples are more impressive than any psychiatric textbook: Joanne Greenberg’s “I Never Promised You a Rose Garden” and Marguerite Sechehaye’s “Autobiography of a Schizophrenic Girl”, Jan Foudraine: “Wer ist aus Holz?” et al. These accounts describe the feelings, experiences and thoughts of schizophrenic people in a way that I could never describe. They talk about how these people have lost their footing, their stability and their confidence, how they desperately try not to sink, not to break or implode, not to merge with someone or something, not to be overwhelmed by strange, uncanny forces, to feel that not only the inside but also reality is strangely changed, and that thoughts and reality cannot be separated. Delusions and hallucinations will be discussed later.

A list of all possible schizophrenic symptoms can also be found in the Summary table columns T, U and V.

A New Psychodynamic Theory of Schizophrenia

Inversions as Main Cause

    But we cannot give an adequate account of the existential splittings unless we can begin from the concept
    of a unitary whole, and no such concept exists, nor can any such concept be expressed within the current
    language system of psychiatry or psychoanalysis.” R.D. Laing¹⁷³
    „All evil is isolating … it is the principle of the separation.“ Novalis

Hypotheses:

• The most frequent primary (!) causes of schizophrenia are inversions. But not every schizophrenic symptom necessarily results from an inversion.
• Any Inversion can cause schizophrenic symptoms. Especially all strange Absolutes (sA) are potentially schizophrenogenic. [We know it: All kinds of things can drive us “crazy”.]
• Any second-rate system, such as P², has latent, or even obvious schizophrenic characteristics (e.g., it is more or less divided.)
• Causes of schizophrenic symptoms are often outside of the affected person.
• It is quite easy to integrate the existing theories about the causes of schizophrenic psychoses into the present paper.
• The well-known theories about the causes of schizophrenic psychosis are easily integrated into the present work.
Regarding the main hypothesis: ‘Any inversion can cause schizophrenic symptoms’, I have to ask the readers to look at the `Summary table´, which can be found either on the network or as an attachment or as a PDF file.

(In general to causes see on `Causes and Results´ and further on `Causes of mental disorders´ and on `Psychoses in General´. To guarantee a better understanding of the emergence of such a disorder, it is recommended also to read the chapter `Spreading and compression´ in `Metapsychiatry´.)

If a Relative irrupts into the absolute sphere of a person it becomes a strange Absolute (sA). At the same time, there is a loss of first-rate personal. Metaphorically speaking, the Relative overthrows the Absolute from the throne. By the loss of the Absolute, the integrating meta-level disappears, which cannot replace by something Relative, so that alienations, displacements, ruptures, madness, etc. can arise.
The resulting sA resp. It has not only in the sphere effects which has been absolutized but it also affects all other aspects in its sphere of influence.
There are also parallels to other disorders: If almost anything can make a person anxious, depressed, or even addicted (albeit with varying degrees of probability), why should the causes of schizophrenic symptoms not be just as diverse?
However, I see the following specifics regarding schizophrenic symptoms:
• The affected person experiences the causes and results as determining.
• ‘Schizophrenia’ (as main term) includes especially the spiritual-mental dimension of man over more or less all aspects.
• Especially those It/sA will be acting schizophrenogenic which have a completely different or even opposite meaning to the original Relative, which was absolutized (for example, when something relative positive is negatively absolutized and reversed). They can be found in the Summary table column `I´ usually in the middle line of the cells). It/sA with all-or-nothing character (= hyper or 0) have especially manic-depressive effects.
• A meta-position is lacking for those affected, which relativizes these contradictions. For this reason, there is no possibility of overcoming and solution of these contradictions.
• The It/sA-effects are are experienced more strongly than first-rate (or other second-rate) compensatory forces.
• Usually, the environment is caught in the same or similar contradictions, which then may transfer.
Affected children experience their environment, especially their parents, with second-rate characteristics, such as they are listed in the Summary table column I and K.
• The schizophrenogenic It/sA must act over a long period of time until the initially absolutized mental attitude has materialized and taken on a life of its own. (See also `Persistence of the strange Absolutes´).
These characteristics explain why schizophrenic symptoms and no other symptoms usually occur, although Inversions are ubiquitous. ¹⁷⁴

Do those who are involved in such contradictions and paradoxes see the world so wrongly? Is it more correct to say that the world is fair, unambiguous, logical, clear, and not contradictory? Our affected families or patients certainly see the world more realistically by seeing it full of contradictions. Their “mistake” is only that they see it not relatively but absolutely.

For the causes of the schizophrenic symptoms I also refer to the beginning of the chapter. (→). There is not the one cause for schizophrenia. The causes for these symptoms are as varied as the individuals which were affected by them. ¹⁷⁵

Manfred Bleuler sums up: “Decades of research have failed to identify a single specific cause of schizophrenic disorders. Today we are ready to accept the idea that there is no such thing. Rather, it has become clear that the predisposition to schizophrenia is formed by a variety of disharmonies that disrupt personality development.” ¹⁷⁶

As described in the part ‘Metapsychiatry‘, one can see the mentioned ‘ideologies’ as a starting point for inversions. This leads to reversals of fundamental meanings, which are solidified by a multitude of “Its”. Each It changes more or less all aspects (‘spreading‘) with a ‘main direction of action’. Although the main impact direction of the particular It essentially determines which kind of symptom group develops, on the other hand, manifold symptoms can be produced by each of the Its. From the point of view of the symptom, this means that each symptom can have a variety of causes. In the case of schizophrenia, this means that there is no one specific cause of schizophrenia, but that several factors must come together to produce this or that group of symptoms. This is also consistent with clinical experience and many theories of schizophrenia development (see later). As I said before, I think a common denominator of these different causes is that they are based on multiple inversions.
I listed all sorts of schizophrenic forms and schizophrenic functional and quality disorders in the Summary table (see the last 3 columns). They correspond in many ways to the symptoms stated in the literature but are listed here systematically according to my classification.
I have tried to make plausible the common of the schizophrenia causes in these statements. Probably everything can make us crazy or split if it is not taken any more relatively but absolutely, and I have tried to illustrate with the concept of the strange Self (resp. It) most different of such absolutized forms with her main results. As said, it seems that in this model most of the numerous theories of the origin of schizophrenic reactions have a place. But one should see them not alternative but in addition. n the Summary table the various aspects are summarized.

I believe that only disturbances of the absolute sphere of the human being (the Self) can cause psychoses, because as long as the causes and the disturbances are only of relative importance, a mental disorder, or even psychosis, will hardly be able to manifest itself. On the other hand, if we look at the enormous integrative power of the actual Self (resp. +A), which makes people identical, valuable and free in every situation, this basis is probably the strongest force against any kind of psychosis, and we should beware of ideology-based models and therapies, because they basically do what the patient does with himself – they invert his existence.

Table Example: To the genesis of fusions and splittings

This chart outlines parts of the Summary table. The first column represents a selection of well-known ideologies, the second column refers to possible, individual attitudes that correlate to these ideologies. All attitudes have inverting effects – one main effect in the main aspect and many side effects (`spreading’) in all other aspects. In the example above, I consider an inversion in the aspect a4 that mainly affects this particular aspect but can also cause disturbances in other aspects. In this example, it means that social or individual ‘monistic’ or ‘dualistic’ attitudes, (such as everything-or-nothing, friend-or-enemy attitudes) can not only cause disorders of unity and variety but can also lead to disorders of identity, reality, security, freedom and so on.
But the inversions of other aspects can also lead to these schizophrenic symptoms (“compression” from the 4th column to the right).
In our example, they lead to disorders within aspect a4. This means, that not only the inversion in aspect 4 itself can lead to disorders of unity and variety but also inversions in other aspects can cause disorders of unity and variety, more precisely: disorders of personal unity and variety (column T), functional disorders such as fusion and separation (column U), or quality disorders (column V) such as autism, ambivalence, splitting and contradictions.

Schizophrenic Symptoms and their Meanings

Below I discuss just a few specific symptoms of schizophrenia.
All possible schizophrenic symptoms can be found in the Summary table columns T-V.

General Information about Splitting (Partly Repetition)

Once, a snake came into my heart, it had two heads, a black one and a white one.
And each head was telling the opposite of the other.
Both were speaking the truth, but the center of their word was a lie.

Here are some notes:
A ‘real’, actual wholeness/unity cannot be divided. (See motto by R.D. Laing above).

For example, if the subject/person is connected to +A, which can integrate everything, then there can be no permanent subject/person/object or other splits.
When something is split, in addition to splits (always?) there are also fusions and compressions.
This is also the case with schizophrenia.
Schizophrenia is a mental breakdown. The German term reflects two typical characteristics: “Zusammen” (fusion) and “Bruch” (split). (As with any breakdown, there are not only splits and fusions, but also empty ones (0), which are not always listed here).
Inversion causes our souls to become divisible and fusible.
Splitting affects the entire absolute sphere of the person as a result of experiencing absolute opposites.
Within the relative sphere, I speak only of differences, divergences, or polarities.
In the following chapter I will mainly discuss the phenomena of splitting and merging.
They are meant to be exemplary and representative of other schizophrenic symptoms.

Spheres of splits

Inversions may cause splits within all aspects. One may differentiate between:
    A: splits in the dimensions-spheres
    B: splits in the differentiations-spheres (for example subject-object-splits , matter-spirit-splits or soul-body-splits , or splits of different realities and people).

    To A
1. The absolute split between + A and ‒A.
2. splits between A and It resp. between Self and strange Self. ¹⁷⁷
3. splits within an It into its parts: pro-sA, contra-sA and s0.
4. splits within an It-part into one of its three sides (+/‒/0).
5. splits between the different sA/sS.

    To 1. In my opinion, the split between +A and ‒A is the only absolute split. But you have to believe in the existence of +A and -A.
    To 2. In relation to the person, the splittings concern the Self and the strange-Self(s). The affected person experiences a contradiction and split of the actual Self and the strange-Selves. This contrast is not absolute in itself, as Self and strange Self partly coincide, but it is experienced as absolute. The strange Self de- and mis-individualizes the person and the individual (literally: the indivisible) becomes divisible!
    To 3) The third area of splits exists as splits inside of the It resp. the strange-Self itself: in the split in pro-sS, contra-sS and 0S (or: +sA,‒sA and s0; Example: ideal, taboo and 0*).

The graphic illustrates the splittings between the Self and the It resp. strange-Self
and in addition, how the It/ sS continues to divide into three parts.

For easier understanding, I recommend taking a look at the chapter ‘The emergence of the It‘ again. There, I describe the structure of It. The It is made of two/three contrary, yet fixed connected parts, which are the starting point of splitting- and fusion phenomena of different illnesses.

To 4) The 4th splitting possibility occurs when one of the three sides of a SS is opposite to another. (This would be the case, for example, when the advantages and disadvantages of an absolutized object are equal).
To 5) The 5th division occurs when two or more strange-Selves are in opposition to each other.

To B
For example: subject-object-splits, matter-spirit-splits or soul-body-splits, or splits of different realities, people and societies.

All these possibilities of splits or fusions (or nothingness) exist within the person as well as towards his environment!
Anything that penetrates the core of a person and is not the Self will disintegrate, break apart and thus cause a split or fusion or emptiness in the person. We all live in a world that is more or less split or fused or empty, and whoever internalizes these splits/fusions/emptiness of the world without being able to process or integrate them will also be split/fused/empty.

Opposites in Schizophrenia and their Dynamics

Splitting and Fusion

Here are examples of split-fusion 0 phenomena, representative of all other opposites. As generally described in the dynamics of second-rate realities, opposites are interdependent and have a particular dynamic: one part generates or fights its opposite, both associated with the loss of first-rate reality (0).
See also `It-parts as opposites …‘ and `Possibilities of interactions‘.

We find the same thing in schizophrenia. More specifically: Similar to second-rate realities, schizophrenic people lose their original unities and connections due to the It/sA: the connection between A and R, between mind and matter, between person and thing, subject and object, but also between different persons (0).
But opposite phenomena can also arise: fusions, one-sidedness, false connections, etc.
In this case, the diversity of various units, such as those of different persons, different things, mind and body, subject and object, etc., is lost or reversed. As a result, people often become more like things, things more like people, subjects more like objects, and objects more like subjects. The primary identity of different persons and different objects is eventually lost (0).

Schizophrenic psychoses often develop in families that either have strong tendencies toward fusion (symbiosis) or are very divided, or both opposing tendencies are found side by side. The index patient either takes the pro side, the contra side, or is torn between these two sides. This person usually has no clear position of his own (no real Self) and still needs an old position to guarantee psychic stability. But the more this position overtaxes the person, the more he will be forced into the opposite position, or he will alternate between the two positions, or he will become divided. Meanwhile, the 0-position can be chosen as a balance between the opposite positions, but also at a high cost.
R. D. Laing: “The polarity, then, is between complete isolation or complete fusion of identity… The individual oscillates constantly between the two extremes, each of which is equally unfeasible. He lives rather like those mechanical toys which have a positive tropism which drives them towards a stimulus until they reach a certain point, whereupon a built-in negative tropism drives them away until the positive tropism takes over again, and this oscillation is repeated ad infinitum.” ¹⁷⁸
And Manfred Bleuler pointed out that autism and split are two sides of one psychic process.
All of these reactions are associated with deficits of first-rate reality and personality.

I believe that the extreme introversion in autism or schizophrenia is a protective act to keep the personal core from splitting or disintegrating. Because the person has a weaker Self, any additional pressure threatens to destroy the remaining Self as well. The person is caught in a vicious circle of splitting and merging and o-ing tendencies and cannot escape. (Psychic Bermuda Triangle). He may find some kind of balance between the opposites, but that balance comes at a very high cost. It will be very hard for the person to give up this balance (even if it means losing his symptoms) because as soon as he wants to get away from one side, the other sides will threaten him. The threat is perceived as existential. The person believes that he will die if he tries to give up the balance between the split and the merge and the 0 positions. Why? Because the person has identified with the underlying sA, even though that sA is the cause of the splitting and autistic reactions. In order to lose the sA and the symptoms, the person basically has to let the sA “die”. However, since the person identifies with the sA, he will experience the sA’s “death” as his own death. The person will not take this risk, especially as long as he cannot find a stronger Absolute. (Objectively speaking, it’s not about letting foreign absolutes die, it’s just about relativizing them.)
Not only division and fusion can create a costly equilibrium, but also the pro and contra positions (↔) of all personal aspects, especially those that are on the same aspect level.

Here are some examples (not all three opposites are always mentioned)

strange ego ↔ loss of ego
division, isolation, `explosion’ ↔ fusion, compression, `implosion
chaos ↔ inner compulsion, automatism
peculiarity, specificity ↔ no individuality
ecstasy ↔ lack of emotions
hallucinations ↔ inner emptiness, isolation
symbolized, encoded issues ↔ concrete, simplified issues (concretism)
closing, isolating ↔ opening, exposing
insensitivity, petrification ↔ sensitivity, pain
reification ↔ liquidation
bizarre themes ↔ amorphous themes
emptiness, inner poverty ↔ heaviness
weakness, powerlessness ↔ false power, feeling of omnipotence
feeling of inferiority ↔ megalomania
fixation ↔ instability, dissolution, displacement.

Hints
– These examples are variants of the fundamental inversion of absolute, relative and nothing. (A↔R↔0).¹⁷⁹
– Not only schizophrenia itself, but also individual symptoms can sometimes be interpreted positively. They can occur as part of progression as well as part of regression. ¹⁸⁰

Splitting and fusion phenomena otherwise

– Social, family, divorces/ symbiotic relationships (see above).
– Other diseases (e.g. dissociative identity disorders, multiple personality disorders, anorexia/bulimia, dyslexia, stuttering, from a certain point on for most mental illnesses).
See also splits in societies.

Parallels to Physics?

We already established, that there are similarities between the rules/laws of second-rate realities (such as in P²), and the laws of physics. That also applies to the impacts of pressure on an object or splitting of an object. In both cases, there are both fracture points and compression points (~ fusions). In some cases, the fractures predominate, in others the compressed. One may even see the third result between the divided parts: the nothingness.
Perhaps there are parallels of second-rate dynamics to physical processes such as nuclear fusion or nuclear fission. The chaos theory describes chaotic conditions which also represent an analogy for psychotic conditions. Autopoietic system theories also describe bifurcations resembling splittings in P².

Shift and Fixation

Everything I said about the opposites ‘splitting / merging / 0’ also applies to ‘shifting and fixation’ because splitting always goes along with merging and shifting goes along with fixation. So the person is not only split and/or fused, but also shifted and/or fixated. We are all not only somewhat split or ‘compressed’ but also shifted (crazy). The graphic in chapter “Fear” should illustrate how the fA / Es displace (make crazy) the person.
The clinically shifted/ crazy person, may have adapted himself to our craziness and was not able to deal with them.¹⁸¹
As mentioned above, one may find certain opposite-pairs and their symptoms throughout all aspects.

Paradoxes and Schizophrenia

Like schizophrenia, paradoxes arise from contradictions within a system that has no meta-level – ultimately caused by ‘Inversions‘.
E.g. Pictures of schizophrenic artists are usually without horizon ~ missing transcendence, meta-level. ¹⁸²
One may also say: Whatever causes paradoxes, can also cause schizophrenia.
In their characteristics, paradoxes (as well as schizophrenia) show contradictions/ ambivalence on the one hand and the indissolubility of those contradictions on the other hand. It can be said: A characteristic of schizophrenia is its inherent paradoxes, which the person concerned cannot resolve.
The solution for both consists in the introduction of a meta-level that can relativize or resolve the contradictions.
By the way: our world is more or less ambivalent, ambiguous or even contradictory and paradoxical. The paradox is also, that interpretation and counter-interpretation often appear equally true.

See also chapter About the emergence of paradoxes.

Further Thoughts on Schizophrenia

After inversion, P² will live on many different foundations. The individual will experience these foundations as contradictory, ambivalent, incompatible, unintegratable, and therefore unresolvable.
The really relative limits become absolute and will be experienced as insuperable („fehlender Überstieg“ – “missing cross over“ Conrad). In itself, the Self (as well as God) compensates for all contradictions and opposites, but the sA does not. While the person (P¹) who is based on the true Self has no problems cooperating with all the different spheres of life and always remains himself, now strange foundations make P opposite and crazy. The strange Selves of these people are sometimes like wolves. They are suspicious and lonely, but in an emergency they stick together. They are not friends, but at most companions or conspiratorial communities. They quickly have common enemies, but they also quickly become enemies. Or they are like helpless lambs. They can never rest because they are constantly being pursued. They have to escape and overcome various obstacles. Or they have defective or contradictory views and behaviors according to the sS on whom they depend. Therefore, they act in ways that cannot be understood by others. Or they are forced into further roles by other strange Selves. And if the I is once itself, an actual I-self, then it is still uncertain in view of other positions, “is it really me or not?
The schizophrenic patient is lacking the self-evidentness (W. Blankenburg). The individual does not experience himself nor the world as self-evident.

W. Blankenburg called the “loss of natural self-evidence” a sign of schizophrenia (1971), but this concerns all of us, since we have lost paradise, not just “schizophrenics”. As a sign of schizophrenia, one should only identify a predominant loss of natural self-evidence (corresponding to a predominant loss of the first-rate Self in the sense of this work).

The “schizophrenic” lacks a Self that protects him, gives him identity, and integrates everything negative. Since P² is identified with a number of different objects or other persons, he is very dependent on them. He can see the same thing completely reversed or distorted and crazy, depending on which strange Self dominates him. The person can no longer, as one so aptly puts it, deal objectively with these or those things and problems. He takes it personally. The centers, the strange Selves, of these people are weak and heteronomous. Their boundaries are perforated. Typical of all schizophrenia is “the intrusion of something external and alien into one’s experience, which means a profound disruption of one’s personal identity, with the blurring of one’s ego boundaries and the abolition of the clear distinction between inner and outer reality” (Ciompi, p. 222).
The graphic in the chapter ‘Vulnerability-stress-theory‘ shows how the self area, which is in itself unassailable, is vulnerable to the strange Selves. This person does not prioritize his own Self, but prioritizes the foreign parts. These strange introjects are given subject status, become quasi-personal, and the ego becomes a passive and vulnerable object. It is not surprising that in this situation the person concerned reacts delusionally or hallucinates. Since the foreign has established itself in a dominant position, the person also feels how these foreign forces dominate him, how they do something to him, as an object, pursue him, observe him, or even talk to him. As inexplicable as these phenomena may seem at first glance, they become understandable when we consider the role of the strange Self (sS), because the strange Self has been personalized while the I-self has been depersonalized. If, for example, the parents or what they represent are taken absolutely, the child will develop structures that correspond to the absolutized parental parts. These (quasi-personal) parts now take on a kind of subject role. They act as subjects and are experienced as such. Therefore, there are many affected persons who are able to assign voices to certain persons. The sS becomes a quasi-personal foreign body that can also “speak”. One can also say: a strange Ego speaks from an sS base.
There are many more phenomena caused by the mentioned sS resp. It and are noted in the Summary table column T-V. So I will not list them again here. Of course, the actual events are not that simple, but I think they are plausibly explainable, and it’s amazing why schizophrenia is still considered a total mystery.
Regarding the causes of schizophrenic reactions, I recommend looking at the chapter
‘About the causes of mental disorders‘ and `Mental disorders from the biographic perspective´.

If we read these sections from the point of view of splitting phenomena, we find that the most frequent and typical genesis of schizophrenic reactions is the following “story”:
The most important reference persons (mostly the parents) of the later ill individual are sS-determined, whether they are ill themselves or not. These strange Selves of the most important persons add up in their effects. The child is confronted with various absolutized positive (+) and negative (-) things, things to obey and things to avoid. The core of this child will depend on whether it obeys or avoids these specific issues. The child’s true Self, which is mainly free and independent, has to subordinate itself and is pushed aside. This is the main division. Certainly, we all have such divisions within us. The more the true Self is pushed aside, the less the child is itself and the more it has to be a strange Self. Parents rarely consciously deal with such a process, which does not mean that parents do not make conscious mistakes. As already said, they themselves are very often strange-determined, but either they have enough own self not to become ill or they can compensate the sS-parts somehow or live with another emergency solution (which will be discussed later). As long as the child takes on the strange selves of its parents (mostly unconsciously), existing splits or other symptoms will not be as noticeable as at the point where the individual tries to live more from its own actual Self-base. This point may be later in life, when the child is an adult. At that point, the individual will be in clear contradiction to his or her outer and inner strange ideals and strange taboos. The contradictions will now be experienced as tense or even existentially threatening. This is a very important point: Even if the situation seems to be easily manageable, the personal experience is very different because the person (P) perceives it as absolute. P will feel that it is a matter of life and death. While some more fortunate people find a solution, others do not. The tensions and divisions threaten to tear P apart.
As mentioned in the paragraph ‘solutions’, there are different possibilities now. In our case, the individual will become ill (which I refer to as emergency solution B.) This means that the person takes a compromise (alternative) as a solution, which relieves him to a certain extent, but also has a high cost: the price is his health.

People with psychotic reactions, or mental illness in general, often want to live more deeply, want to live their own lives. That is why I think it is important not to think of mental illness as something negative, because even if the person is trying to do the right thing – for example, to separate from his parents – he can still become ill.

Even though we all have latent schizophrenic phenomena within us (according to my theory), not every person will become clinically schizophrenic. Why not?

For one thing, the extent and nature of the sS play a big role. Then, whether they tend to weaken or strengthen each other’s effects. I believe that schizophrenic phenomena are experienced above all when the person dares to venture into the tension between the actual self and the strange selves. The sick person experiences the sS or It as “gilded cages” and wants to escape somehow. (Mostly unconsciously.) He tries to change his basic life foundations, his strange Selves, because the old ones are increasingly constricting him. He tries to cross the border of the strange Selves, but the danger is: he falls between the chairs or gets torn apart. He could take the easy way out and just sit on the old chairs. Then P wouldn’t become schizophrenic, but would pay the price of a second-rate, over-adapted life. It seems that many people choose this. But some people prefer a divided life that is at least halfway real and maladjusted to a fully adapted and inauthentic life, but then they risk a crisis.
I believe that many clinically healthy people have more inner splits or similar phenomena than those who are diagnosed as schizophrenic, because they solve it in an easy and comfortable way with being conformed. Although they prevent their own manifest illness, they become a kind of transmitter of the causes of illness. I do not want to condemn this, but I want to show people with psychotic reactions that they may be more courageous (even if they are unhappier) than some so-called healthy people. They are often more honest in a frightening but also self-destructive way. Frightening for us so-called normal people who hardly dare to face the lies of our lives and the heteronomies. The clinically healthy people are not automatically less crazy, they just suffer less. R.D. Laing said: “So I would emphasize that our ‘normal’, ‘adjusted’ state is too often the abandonment of ecstasy, the betrayal of our true potentialities, that many of us are only too successful in acquiring a false self in order to adapt to false realities.” [R.D. Laing in “The Divided Self”].

On the other hand, psychotic reactions can also occur in a regressive way.
While the above-mentioned people tried to jump into life but crashed halfway, others run away from a life that seems unbearable. Psychosis can therefore occur both when moving forward (progressive') and when moving backward (regressive’), because the future is unknown and uncertain, or the past and present seem unbearable. Often the stalemate seems to be the safest situation. But it is too much to die and too little to live.
Schizophrenia can be described as living in conflict between the actual absolute and the relative that seems absolute, as living between the self and strange Selves or between different strange Selves.
It is a suffering from contradictions that is experienced as unbearable for the person concerned. This fact can only be explained by assuming that they are disturbances in the absolute realm in the person. Such people try to live on two or more planes, two or more Absolutes. They are chronically desperate and indecisive. They live in an existential dilemma.

Hints
1. “The desperate man is like a wave driven to and fro by the wind. He is a man of two souls.” (James 1:6,8).
2. I have placed the symptom of “splits” in the center of this article because it gave schizophrenia its name
– it is, as the Summary table shows, by no means the only and most typical symptom of schizophrenia..

I also think we tend to overemphasize the differences between different mental illnesses, while not seeing the commonalities in depth, such as the strange Selves.
I also have no problem seeing direct parallels between schizophrenic psychodynamics and corresponding external situations, such as divorce – with the difference that in the case of schizophrenia, the “divorce” is internal, and the schizophrenic person cannot completely separate from himself, although he tries. By the way: I would give medication to a person in a divorce and to a person with schizophrenic reactions only if they could be overwhelmed by the respective suffering, but not as a self-evident “relapse prevention” from the beginning.
I would also like to point out that I do not consider the elimination of schizophrenic symptoms to be the first and most important step in therapy. This is of course a long-term goal, but in certain situations the person may not be able to tolerate change and/or may need the illness as protection. (See below). Above all, the therapist should accept the patient with all his or her splits and unresolved problems. Symptoms are not the absolute bad, just as health is not the absolute good. By not giving absolute significance to schizophrenic symptoms, the therapist does not cause additional disturbances that would otherwise occur. However, the relativization of symptoms is not of absolute importance and does not guarantee their cure, but the chances are much higher.

Finally, the positive aspects of schizophrenic symptoms should be emphasized once again.

They will be mentioned here only as keywords and hypotheses:
With psychosis, patients defend their remaining parts of dignity, freedom, individuality, and self-determination, but at the cost of giving up a part of themselves. The illness is both protection and self-abandonment. “You know, the thing that is so wrong about being mentally ill is the terrible price you have to pay to survive” – as it says in “I Never Promised You a Rose Garden”. Or as one of Luc Kaufmann’s patients said: “If I woke up, I would die!” On the one hand, it is good if doctors and patients respect this psychotic defense, but on the other hand, the question remains whether the patient cannot do without this expensive protection. Therefore, I consider psychotic reactions, as well as mental illness in general, to be an “allowed emergency solution” for the patient. This gives the patient the opportunity to allow this option without feeling guilty, but one should always question the necessity of this very expensive protection. The same goes for drug protection. Psychosis is not only an emergency protection, it also offers an emergency solution in all other personal aspects: it can give substitute individuality, substitute dignity, -freedom, -variety, -order, -reality, -past, -present and -future. It can provide substitute communication, substitute well-being, and all the other positive aspects of second-rate reality. Better an expensive alternative than a total loss of self. So illness can become an emergency rescue of the Self. But probably the most difficult thing is to use these positive aspects only in an emergency, if possible, and to endure the crisis that arises from their abandonment despite all the hardships. (In my experience, the easiest way to do this is to bring God into the picture.)

Accordance with Other Theories of Schizophrenia

Do not all common concepts of schizophrenia have some validity? At least in the sense that they describe many different possible causes of schizophrenia. I can easily integrate most of the theories into my concept, i.e. I hope that with the concept of Inversions of the existential dimensions I have not only found a common denominator for these theories, but can also illustrate deeper, more fundamental causes and therapies.

The known theories of schizophrenia emphasize the following factors as the cause of schizophrenia:¹⁸³

Highly Expressed Emotions (HEE) (G.W. Brown and others).
Double-bind theory (Gregory Bateson).
Entanglement (S. Minuchin).
Delegation’ and ‘impossible mission’ (H. Stierlin).
Paradoxes (M. Selvini Palazzoli).
Narcissism and contradictions based on internalized object relations (Kernberg).
Ego-weakness, often emphasized by psychoanalysts.
In the older literature, the issue of dysfunctional family situations played a very large role, without finding specific results.
Disturbed family/interpersonal relationships (H. S. Sullivan, Th. Lidz et al.).
Schizophrenic mothers (Frieda Fromm-Reichmann).
Similar to Margaret Mahler, D. Winnicott.
Social isolation, especially among immigrants (Scheflen).
Vulnerability-Stress Model. (See below).
Psychosis is the result of a collapse of openness to the event. (Henri Maldiney).
Schizophrenia as a result of the “loss of the natural self-evidence” of the person.
(W. Brandenburg).
Genetic, neurobiological factors, immune disorders, birth defects and infections are, in my opinion, overestimated as causative factors. It also remains open whether some are not the result of primary psychogenic disorders. (→ Neuroscience).
Drugs and alcohol can induce psychosis.

Each of these theories could easily be assigned to one of the aspects in column A of the
Summary table or in Summary of the classification, as I do in the following examples.

In the following section, I will compare these most common theories to the hypotheses of this paper: Vulnerability-Stress Theory, Kernberg’s Object Relations Theory, Double Bind Theory, and the Expressed Emotion Concept.

Vulnerability-Stress-Theory

“Authors such as Zubin and Spring, Ciompi and Nuechterlein have all used the vulnerability-stress-model to explain the multifactorial psychosocial-biological development of schizophrenia. People at risk for schizophrenia … show a particular vulnerability and sensitivity which, combined with stress and social or physical strain, can lead to an outbreak of psychosis.”¹⁸⁴

Typical of all schizophrenia is “an intrusion of something external and foreign into one’s experience, which means a profound disruption of one’s personal identity with the blurring of one’s ego boundaries and the abolition of the clear distinction between inner and outer reality.”¹⁸⁵
With the following two illustrations I try to translate these views into the terminology of my theory:

Fig. The stress-vulnerability concept applied to my concepts.
Note: The vulnerable areas are also areas for manipulation and areas in which over-stimulation can take place because the external stimuli can freely penetrate into the self-area. In the Summary table, this topic is shown above all in the row of Asp. 23.

All psychiatrists agree that many factors, each of which is rather unspecific, must come together.
It is probably a mistake to try to find a single cause, especially since there are many forms of schizophrenia, each of which is different from the others.
Note: The so-called “Demands and Capacities Model” (explanation of stuttering) is very similar to the Vulnerability-Stress Model.

Manfred Bleuler, who is very close to me in his psychodynamic understanding of the development of schizophrenia, expressed himself in a similar way. “In my own experience, however, we are closer to a first solution of the mystery than is often recognized… The conditions for the development of schizophrenic mental disorders are, in my opinion, best understood in terms of an unfavorable interaction between contradictory developmental tendencies and contradictory living conditions. The schizophrenic falls ill in a struggle which everyone has to fight, but which the healthy person overcomes: He falls ill in the struggle for a unified ego, for a unified personality, in spite of inner tendencies that are difficult to reconcile and adverse environmental conditions. In this struggle, the schizophrenic has crossed a critical threshold. Beyond this threshold, he abandons the struggle to adapt to reality and creates for himself a fantastic world adapted to his conflicting needs.” ¹⁸⁶

Kernberg’s Object-Relations Theory

Kernberg’s theory of the confusion of self and object representations and the related lack of distinction between inner and outer worlds can be explained by the figure above right. It illustrates how absolutized objects of the world invade the person’s self-sphere, become foreign selves, and thus disrupt the distinction between one’s self and the foreign objects, or the inner and outer worlds. Ciompi also describes the blurred boundaries between self-representations and object-representations, and the related problem of schizophrenics in distinguishing between the inner and outer worlds.
In the summary table, this topic is particularly represented in row IV (subject-object relations).
In the Summary table,, this topic is particularly represented in row IV (subject-object relations).
Melanie Klein emphasized the child’s relationship to good and bad objects in its development and the difficulties or disturbances in their integration.
In the Summary table , this theme is particularly represented in row III.

Double-Bind Theory

The Double-Bind Theory is G. Bateson’s theory of schizophrenic disorders, first presented in 1956. In the following section, I describe the double-bind theory using information from Wikipedia¹⁸⁷ It is abbreviated and italicized, and I compare my corresponding hypotheses in square brackets [ ].

“The classical double bind theory describes the following requirements for a double bind to occur: A primarily negative commandment or prohibition that is essential for survival and incompatible with a second essential commandment, and a third commandment that prohibits the victim from attempting metacommunication and makes it seem impossible for him to leave the conflict. These conditions are usually internalized and become self-perpetuating.”

[This theory is largely compatible with my concept: it emphasizes the absolute character of what binds twice, the incompatibility of the commandments with each other, the impossibility for the person concerned to resolve these contradictions, even if they could be resolved objectively, and that it is impossible for the individual to resolve them for subjective reasons, because they have acquired an absolute meaning and a relativizing meta-level is missing].

“The main difference between a [relatively] contradictory and a paradoxical rule of action is that, in the case of the former, one can consciously perceive and choose the alternatives. Although one loses the other by choosing one option, one consciously accepts its loss. “(Which is not the case with the paradoxical rule.)

[Here, the loss of the option to choose in a paradoxical situation is rightly mentioned because the individual does not have a superordinate Absolute that would allow the option to be chosen. Instead, the differences are absolute.]

“The double-bind theory considers (initially) two levels: The dominant parent and the dependent child. A third, superordinate level, such as social norms, ideals, or goals to which the dominant sender of the double-bind message feels committed, is not initially considered. However, such a third superordinate level can be found in the Stanford Prison Experiment and in the Milgram Experiment.”

[The need to consider a third, superordinate meta-level is mentioned here. This also means to consider an absolute sphere in which the “perpetrators” are also included].

“There is … a wide field of potential contradictions which are not really contradictory on the level of logic. The real determinant is … the subjective excessive demand in the consciousness of the child. A particular problem may overtax the child, but as long as the child does not have to solve the problem, the child can look at the problem with relaxed interest and will learn from the situation.”

[With these statements, the classical double-bind theory is extended to all problems or contradictions of the individual that seem unsolvable, which coincides with my hypotheses.]

Regarding pressure to conform and self-image:

“… in double-bind relationship patterns, the nature of the influence includes the nature of the victim’s self-image.”

[Important reference to the disruption of the victim’s identity, where not only identity but all psychic aspects are disrupted. And the causes are not only double binds (or splits) but all inversions.]

My concept confirms and extends the double-bind theories.

In detail:

– The counterparts of double-binds are double-splits and lack of bindings. They are the other It effects, e.g. when the It exists as a nine-sided triad; i.e. there can be two or three different effects of the same It/sA.
– Double bonds/splits can occur when the solution of an inversion is forbidden or impossible, because it is of absolute importance to the persons involved. The exposure of fundamental errors in the system is forbidden because it would plunge the system into crisis, and the system members therefore believe that their common Absolutes must remain under all circumstances.
– All inversions can have double-bind, multiple-bind, splitting, or deficit effects.
– Even a single It/sA can cause double-binds or double-splits or deficits.
– All P² can be the cause as well as the target of these double effects, because every P² is dominated by It/sA, which can have contradictory effects. But remember: the whole P does not consist only of P²-parts.
– When people live sA-determined (= P²), they send double-bind messages.
– Every (absolute) bond is also a discrepancy between outer or inner necessities and the inner need for freedom. Note: Terms such as double-bind or double-message can also be used to describe paradoxical binds, predicaments, dilemmas, traps, and so on. When S. Freud said that these are the results of “two opposing affective or drive reactions, one of which is a partial drive” and “the other tries to prevent it“, and that this is absolutely typical of neurotic symptoms, then the same is being said – as well as H.F. Searles’ statement that one cause of the double-bind is “that one is in the same relationship with the other on two (or even more) different levels at the same time, which have no connection with each other. This has the tendency to force the other person to dissociate his or her participation from one or the other of these levels (possibly both), because he or she finds it inappropriate to refer to a particular level when it has no relation to what is going on at the other level…“. Searles describes how a very attractive and provocatively dressed woman nearly drove him crazy with a sterile discussion of theology and philosophy. ¹⁸⁸
– Double bindings/splits can also occur when they come from two contradictory sides of a part of an It (e.g., a front side and a back side). But because they are based on the same part, it falsely appears that they cannot be contradictory. A second possibility: One part and the opposite part say the same thing because the back of one part and the front of the opposite part have the same connotation.
– There are 1000 causes that can lead to attachments or separations or deficiencies of two (or many) people, as well as 1000 causes that can lead to attachments or separations or deficiencies within one person. In both cases, there are many different possible causes that can lead to a very specific but individually different result.

Examples:
– Mother and father take an absolute position for the child. This creates a double bond: the child must follow both mother and father, even though they are different. But this is also a splitting of the child’s image of the parents and the truth, which is that the parents are not of absolute importance.
– Analogous example: Mother is good, father is bad → attachment, splitting and trap for the child.

Possibilities of double-binds and splits in systemic and dimensional spheres².

In the `Summary table´ this topic will be displayed particularly in row a4.

If a first-rate +metaposition is applied, the subjective or objective contradictions (including all dichotomies and their double-binding/splitting) will be resolved or at least modified.

Expressed-Emotion Concept

“High expressed emotions (HEE) means that the family members mention a lot of criticism towards the patient. They show hostility or are characterized by an emotional over-involvement. The negative influence of HEE on the relapse rate of schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorder and eating disorders has been scientifically proven. However, there is no accepted theory on the mechanism of action. ¹⁸⁹.
This concept is also in line with the ideas of my theory, which emphasizes the absolute importance of certain people and their attitudes towards the person concerned. This absolute importance has certain consequences in the area of emotions and behavior (especially aspect 7) and regarding the emotions shown in cells I7 and N7 of the Summary table (hyper-emotion, mis-emotion, and insensitivity). I believe that the popular literature over-interprets hyper-emotion while neglecting mis-emotion and insensitivity.

Criticism on Certain Schizophrenia-Theories

• Holistic concepts seem to be missing.
Questions: How can theories that have no concept of the whole sufficiently explain schizophrenic phenomena?
How can therapies resolve splits that split off everything that is not scientific and thus are themselves split? Don’t they lack a meta-theory that integrates everything that is psychically relevant? I.e., a bond for the person/system that encompasses everything and “holds together”? The integrating instance must be on a meta-individual and meta-personal absolute level when the person is no longer able to solve the split by himself or with the help of other people. As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry said: “For one day I will speak to you of the necessity or the Absolute, which is the divine knot that binds things together.“ ¹⁹⁰
The index-patient and his family can be considerably relieved if the main responsibility for solving the problems lies in an instance outside of the affected people. Here, we can also notice a disadvantage of one-sided psychiatry. I refer to the predominant personal image of psychiatry today, consisting of many self-representations, that are not being held together by a superordinate unity so that an unfavorable initial situation of therapy of schizophrenic psychoses exists.
• Many concepts focus solely on eliminating disorders. In contrast, Eugen Bleuler said that the basic characteristic of psychoses is that the healthy parts remain over in schizophrenia. They are not gone, they are just hidden. ¹⁹¹
• C. Kulenkampff stated: Griesinger’s statement in the second half of the 19th century that mental illnesses are brain diseases was too dogmatic. His hypothesis – “Schizophrenia is a somatic disease” – finally became an “unreflected assertion“. “The elephant of worldwide biochemical, anatomical, genetic and natural science research has not yet given birth to a mouse in the field of etiology.”¹⁹²
I have the impression that this statement has not changed in principle, even though more detailed neuropathological research is available today.
• Most theories of schizophrenia are based on a positivist principle, that is, they accept only hard facts. M. Musalek, on the other hand, rightly says: “The main problem with positivist approaches to research is that nature obviously knows nothing about our principles of classification and order. We are the ones who create disease categories into which we then order the nature that surrounds us. Nature does not know these forms and categories. Therefore, schizophrenia research based on positivism … has been unsuccessful. ¹⁹³
R.D. Laing even went so far as to regard schizophrenia as a projection of some schizophrenic theories. ¹⁹⁴

Why can Inversions with their effects (sA/It) be seen as the common denominator for the genesis of schizophrenia in the above theories?
In the previous sections, I have explained how inversion-impacts explain the Vulnerability-stress-model, the Double Bond Theory, the “Paradoxes” (M. Selvini Palazzoli), pathological narcissism according to Kernberg, and the High Expressed Emotions Theory.

Regarding other theories:

S. Minuchin says that the entanglements occur because the individuals involved are not able to find a solution in the particular (sA-dominated) spheres, i.e. they are not able to engage a solving meta-level.
Delegation” and “impossible mission” (H. Stierlin) can also be explained: The affected individuals are unable to fulfill the sA demands delegated by other people.
The common ego weakness can be explained with an ego that is overtaxed by the sA.
The “broken home situation” often described in older literature can be found, as well as the opposite form of fusion/ hyper-proximity.
Schizophrenogenic mothers (Frieda Fromm-Reichmann) can also be found in addition to all the other schizophrenogenic factors.
When Klaus Conrad laments the lack of transcendence (no “crossing over”) in schizophrenics, why is transcendence excluded from the known theories of schizophrenia?
If Sigmund Freud regrets the lack of a religious perspective in psychotherapy, why is it not used? See his letter to Pfister, op. cit.)

See also chapter `‘Psychotherapy of Schizophrenia‘ in part `Psychotherapy’.

Delusion

Delusion can be explained by the fact that the person (P) does not judge himself and the world from a first-rate perspective, i.e. from the actual Self, but P interprets the world from foreign, distorted, partly contradictory points of view by the Its/sA. This disturbed way of thinking and interpreting causes disturbances, which can be found especially in aspect 18 of this work (see below). I assume that other absolutizations are also added that determine the content of the delusion. The themes of the delusion reflect certain absolutizations: e.g., absolutizing one’s own responsibility and morality → everything is my fault → delusional guilt;
Others, depending on the absolutized issue: paranoia, delusional impairment, persecutory delusion, delusional jealousy, megalomania, hypochondriac delusion, and so on.
The connection between ideology and delusion seems obvious: ideologies believe they possess absolute truths. In other words, ideologies are more or less delusional and promote delusion. One can relate the various delusions to certain aspects of the differentiation of this work. Instead of a +A, individuals experience strange Absolutes in their systems. “Such people live in their own solar systems …” said F. Nietzsche once. ¹⁹⁵
The causes are by no means found only in the sufferer. People with delusions are often the victims of healthy people with non-clinical delusions, whose price is paid by the sufferers. Therefore, misidentifications play an important role in delusions: I identify myself with someone/something or I identify someone/something with me. Exterior issues then represent the interior of P², and vice versa, the exterior takes on different meanings for the person. Example of delusional jealousy: A patient who compensates for low self-esteem by presenting his attractive wife as an object to other men: “Look what a guy I am to have such a sexy wife.” But at the same time he develops the delusion that his wife might like other men better and he might lose his love object* (sA), his wife. E. Bleuler: “The development of the delusion seems less puzzling if one imagines it as the result of a comprehensible confrontation of an inner and outer conflict situation: [e.g.] an ambitious young man wants to achieve great things, but he does not achieve great things. His self-esteem does not allow him to blame his own inability for his misfortune: he protects himself from feelings of inferiority by blaming his fate on the evil intrigues of other peoples. Or a girl who has no boyfriend because of her inability to socialize dreams of men of much higher rank falling in love with her, but she blames the evil people who prevent her from meeting these men.” ¹⁹⁶
Bleuler can only imagine the transition from normal to psychotic by imagining a certain “point of no return”. This would be “the point at which the confrontation of one’s situation with reality becomes so painful and shattering that one gives up on reality and becomes trapped in a surreal world of the imagination.”
I would describe that ‘point of no return’ as the point where a Relative became a strange Absolute (resp.It), that is not to integrate.

Table: Example of the genesis of delusion (extract)

Analogous to the previously mentioned derivations of splitting and other schizophrenic phenomena, this table is intended to illustrate some possibilities for the development of delusional thoughts and similar mental disorders due to Inversions. In particular, absolutizations and negations of different meanings and values will promote the development of delusions. These often involve the idealization or degradation of people. The table also emphasizes the fact that it is not only inversions of meanings and values (asp.18) that can cause delusions, but potentially all inversions of the other aspects. Dogmatism and anarchism, for example, not only cause disturbances of order, but can also cause disturbances of thinking and judging, and thus promote delusional thinking. Or, if we are fixated on responsibility and functionality, then we will feel secure and confident with other people as long as we fulfill our responsibilities and functions. If we do not fulfill them, we may become ill and even paranoid.

I would like to share a personal experience: When I myself needed psychiatric treatment about 30 years ago, the main reason was that I was full of absolute “musts”. I believed that I had to be a good person (also according to misunderstood Christian views). I always had to be helpful and available to my patients, but I also had to earn a certain amount of appreciation. As long as I fulfilled these requirements, I received a lot of appreciation and had a strong ego. However, it all collapsed when I could no longer fulfill all the requirements – perhaps I did not want to fulfill them. My fellow human beings, especially my patients, became more and more threatening. With everyone who came into my office at this stage of life, I thought: “This person is expecting a lot of help and I have to give it.” I did not realize that my attitude made me vulnerable and caused me to see his wishes as unconditional demands on me. The patient eventually became my adversary, and I became my own adversary. “Why does everyone ask me for everything?”, “Why do some people look at me strangely?”, “What can I do?”, “No one can help me!”
Fear, strangeness, despair, and helplessness became overwhelming. I was moments away from experiencing a manifest delusion, moments away from losing my mind. Fortunately, I decided to seek professional help. I experienced a turning point when I realized that I am absolutely loved by God, whoever I may be, who does not make His love and my self dependent on whether or not I fulfill these or those responsibilities and functions, no matter how good or meaningful they may be. (Although the psychotherapy did not intend this at that time, it fortunately lead me in this direction, for which I am grateful.)

Questions:

Can’t every ideology create delusions?
Does not every person, group, or society have its delusions in the form of absolutizing growth, progress, achievement, perfection, feasibility, beauty, and other delusions?
What distinguishes the delusion of the healthy from the delusion of the sick?
(The so-called healthy person does not suffer because his delusion is still positive for him, while the delusion of the sick person is painful.)
Don’t the delusions of us “healthy” people promote the delusions of the sick?

See also about the therapy of delusion in `Values´.

Hallucinations

Delusions and hallucinations are closely related. Hallucinations are sensory illusions, without a demonstrable cause of stimuli.
Hypotheses:
While the main reason for delusions is most found in aspect 18 (thinking and judging), the main reason for hallucinations is found in aspect 16 (perception). The affected person has a contradicting perception of himself and the world. He sees, hears and feels everything in an alienated way. ¹⁹⁷ Such as all the other psychotic symptoms, hallucinations may also be caused by Inversions.

Due to certain It/sA, the affected person views the world as though looking through a faulty pair of glasses:
black and white, too clear or unclear, distorted and so on.

Acoustic hallucinations are mainly developed by internalized absolutizations of people, which act like a homunculus in the affected person. The It speaks to him, gives advice or orders, etc. These are expressions of a special strange Self (sS), that become effective here as pseudo-personal, homunculus-like “central internalization”. The It is in the subject role and the affected person has been pushed into the object role. (“It commands me…”, “It comments my behavior”, “It threatens me”, etc.) Such personal voices are created because the personal sA/It (as `humunculi’) are often stronger than some other personal forces. Acoustic hallucinations are mainly voices of introjections of absolutized people (of people as sS) who were/are loved too much or hated too much. Or they are a transference of pathogenic behavioral patterns of people surrounding the sick person. These people are usually healthy themselves, but they transfer their pathogenic issues and attitudes onto others who cannot defend themselves.
I think, that phenomena such as delusions and hallucinations should not be viewed solely negative and absolutely pathological. Those disorders may also be an expression of going the right direction and may have progressive characteristics. Thus, they may also be an expression of the actual I-self. Consider, how many intuitions, illusions or predictions were thought to be abnormal and turned out to be absolutely true.
(See also about the therapy of hallucinations in `New and old´.)

Depressive and Manic Reactions

“It is the phantom of our own self whose deep affinity and profound influence
on our mind either damns us to hell or uplifts us into heaven.” E.T.A. Hoffmann, ‘The Sandman’.

Depressive and manic symptoms may be caused by every inversion that leads to certain strange-Selves.
The following graphs illustrate which sS mainly caused depressions and which cause manic symptoms: ¹⁹⁸

This graph is meant to illustrate kinds of the strange-Selves (resp. personal Its) and their effects.

Main positions of the depressive and the manic: The absolutized positive (+*) has to be fulfilled and the absolutized negative (-*) has to be avoided or fended off and the 0* (here not drawn) has to be filled. As soon as the person goes against those requirements, he will become depressive. If he meets the requirements, he may become manic.

I postulated: When a person absolutizes something Relative or negates an actual Absolute, depressive and manic reactions can be the result. The absolutized Relative becomes an strange Self that intrudes into the actual Self and pushes it aside. The actual I can no longer live freely with the actual Self (as the I-Self), but is rejected and also pushed aside.
We talked about the subject-object split and understood it as a process by which the strange I (ego) becomes the subject instead of the actual I. The actual I becomes the object, which is degraded and oppressed. This is the oppressive and depressive side. But the strange Self will also give something ‘positive’:
It will give exaggerated ‘good’ feelings, ‘pleasure’ in the sense of compensatory satisfaction. I cannot stress enough that it is important to see the strange Self not only as negative, but also as ambivalent, substitute, or secondary. The motto might be: It is better to experience intoxication than to commit suicide.

We discussed those two sides of the strange Self: the pro-sS (ideal*) and the contra-sS (taboo*).¹⁹⁹ The ideal* gives, motivates, stimulates, and makes the person happy and proud when it is fulfilled. On the other hand, it will always demand something and therefore act oppressively if it is not fulfilled enough. And if the person chooses to act against the ideal*, it becomes a tyrant and causes a sense of inferiority and guilt, a sense of loss and depression. The person will continue to try to fulfill the ideal through self-denial. However, he/she becomes overwhelmed and develops symptoms of depression. ²⁰⁰

Along with the punishment of the strange self, there will be a loss of the positive aspects of the actual Self, since it is no longer the only foundation of the person. This mainly means loss of identity, vitality, uniqueness, freedom, self-confidence, which are all signs of depression. Therefore, depression can be seen as a loss of the true Absolute and as oppression by a strange Absolute (or strange Self).
I see mania as an expression of the person’s conformity to an absolutized positive* (ideal*)..²⁰¹ A manic person has the feeling that he/she found the +Absolute or is identical with it. ²⁰²

However, it is only a short-term fulfillment of the ideal that gives this kind of feeling. Because the strange Self only gives substitutes, the positive feeling is not only limited, but also qualitatively less valuable. It remains a meager feeling of happiness: a brief rush, a thrill. Therefore, a manic person is not happy, but rather “high.
As the term “bipolar disorder” describes, mania and depression are two sides of the same thing – the ambivalence of the strange Self.
Mania is also a protection against depression, just as depression is a protection against mania. Mania is an inverse co-form of depression and vice versa. Therefore, the depressed person always has latent manic parts, and the manic person always has latent depressive parts. ²⁰³
It is well known that the disease progresses in different phases. Since these phases are autonomous and do not correlate with the actual situation of the person, they do not seem to be explainable in a psychodynamic way, which makes many people think that it is some kind of metabolic disease. Unfortunately, we do not have enough time to discuss this problem. But if we look at the hypotheses that have been made, it becomes very clear why these phases can occur. The main reason lies in the characteristics of the strange Self. In the first part of Metapsychiatry, I mentioned how the fluid transitions of black and white, right and wrong, good and bad, positive and negative are reduced to their opposites. The same thing happens with a person’s mental state. For the reversal of mania into depression and vice versa, see the section on Reversal into the opposite´.

According to the strange Selves, the person is either too far in the positive sphere or too far in the negative sphere, even though he/she is no more wrong than the healthy people around him/her.
From the strange Self’s point of view, it looks like this: Like dictators, they make us feel a kind of ecstasy when we have been good and sacrificed a lot for them. Someone might say: Why not? I sacrifice myself for my own good, for my own ideals. So I am the beneficiary. That is partly true, and as I said, the strange self is not only the bad one. The person is also doing something good for himself, or more precisely, for what he thinks is his own self, even though it is not. But if a person sacrifices himself for the ideal*, he will only receive a substitute, not the actual reward, and more often than he receives the substitute, he will experience frustration, oppression, or depression..²⁰⁴
Can one become depressed without having a strange Self? Yes, just as one can become depressed due to “progressive” causes. No, if it is a so-called “neurotic” or “endogenous” depression.

Remarks about Other Disorders

In the following chapter, I will only briefly discuss some mental disorders.

Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder

“Today I know that I had ‘absolute’ claims as an obsessive-compulsive patient .” (Ulrike S.)

A short summary of the known facts:
“Psychoanalysts believe that obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) develops when children begin to fear their own id impulses and use defense mechanisms to reduce the resulting anxiety. … The id impulses usually manifest as obsessive thoughts, and the defense mechanisms manifest as counter-thoughts or compulsive behaviors. … It is likely that a combination of genetic predisposition, cerebral metabolism disorder, and psychic causes (such as stress) is the reason for an outbreak of OCD. An isolated, single cause is still unknown.” ²⁰⁵
U.H. Peters states: “The symptoms illustrate compromises between drives, their restrictions, the demanded expiation of the super-ego and masked substitute-satisfaction, between which the ego cannot decide (ambivalence).” ²⁰⁶
I believe that the causes are based on the unsolved conflicts between the actual Self and some specific strange Selves and the conflicts within those strange Selves. The basic idea would look as followed: The actual Self strives to be free, to be unconditionally loved and always maintain to be itself. (Being allowed to have certain sexual fantasies, allowed to be aggressive and bad and so on). However, strange Selves limit that freedom of being unconditioned and only give substitute-love and substitute-freedom under certain preconditions (fulfillment of +sA-requirements and avoidance of ‒sA-requirements). If these conditions are not met, the strange Selves threaten sanctions that create fear in the person. In order to reduce this fear, the person develops an obsession with fulfilling these requirements, although this usually results in only temporary relief. In other words, anything that has been absolutized can become a compulsion.

Psychoanalysts long ago discovered the compromising nature of these mechanisms. The specific person tries to develop a compromise between the Self and the strange Selves – a compromise between his actual needs and the tempting promises or threats of the strange Selves. However, he does not dare or is unable to relativize the strange Selves because he has identified himself with them and sees them as his own Self.
A better understanding of these internal processes can be found by comparing them to similar external circumstances, for example, by comparing the strange Self to a dictator who, like a carrot and a stick, lures us with false promises on the one hand, but scares us and forces us to behave in a certain way (coercion) if we do not obey and do not have the courage to free ourselves from him.
This view does not exclude neurobiological or genetic factors, although I would not put too much emphasis on them as long as credible psychodynamic hypotheses exist and make causal therapy possible.

I want to give a specific example for the different views and approaches. The case example I would like to illustrate and discuss is out of the publication “Zwangsstörungen im Kindes-und Jugendalter” (obsessive-compulsive disorders in childhood and adolescence). ²⁰⁷
This article describes obsessive-compulsive disorder in a 10-year-old girl who developed the disorder after the death of her grandfather. The authors describe the course of the illness according to scientific criteria and guidelines. They identified possible causes and certain treatments that “showed significant improvement but not complete remission of symptoms. Although there was a direct link between the death of the grandfather and the onset of the child’s OCD, the significance of the grandfather’s death for the girl was surprisingly not discussed! My guess is that because of the guidelines, dealing with such “ultimate” metaphysical issues did not fit into the concept. But what if the grandfather’s death confronted the girl with unresolved metaphysical issues that were relevant to the development of her illness? Certainly it would be absurd to look for metaphysical issues in every kind of symptom. However, when there are signs of relevance, as there are in the case described, we should not ignore them.
Question: Why not comfort the sick girl with the hope that the deceased grandfather lives on in heaven? Or, for the sake of completeness, if there is evidence of sexual abuse by the grandfather, which could also trigger a compulsive symptom, one could believe that there is a superior justice (God¹) that will put both in order: the abuses of the perpetrator as well as any existing guilt feelings of the victim. Of course, such instructions should not replace other psychotherapeutic measures, but complement them. ²⁰⁸
(Note: When I sent a discussion comment to the editors of the publishing journal with my thoughts, I received the typical response that only scientific discussions are published.)

I suppose that psychiatrists, who do not feel responsible for such matters of faith, would allow patients to choose to seek help from a pastor. But this does not help, because

– there are hardly any people who seek help from pastors for mental illness, and
– the person would be sent away by the pastor as soon as he expects “pathological problems”. ²⁰⁹
The dilemma: In such situations, if pastors refuse to work with the mentally ill and psychiatrists work only scientifically, the mentally ill are left alone with their problems. What would be an option to solve this problem? We should probably show more courage to open closed theoretical and practical systems (scientific or theological) and risk more multidisciplinarity.

Fear

The main causes and psychodynamics are very similar to those of OCD. Therefore, I have not described it further. Here are just a few remarks. Fear is not necessarily a bad sign, just as living without fear is not always a good thing. Both are related. This also means that no symptom has absolute significance, although the presence of anxiety is usually relatively negative, while the absence of anxiety is also only relatively positive.
Pathological anxiety has three sources, based on the dimensions:
    • fear of loss of a +sA
    • fear of the manifestation of a ‒sA
    • fear of nothingness
On the one hand threatens the ‒sA, on the other the emptiness (0 *) and on the third the loss of a +sA.

P is caught in a psychic ‘Bermuda Triangle’:
A +sA and its opponent drive the person in front of themselves, from one to another or into nothingness.
How here the inner sA/ It make fear, madness etc. this psycho-terror – in the form of `carrot and stick ‘(and emptiness) – is also used in totalitarian systems to suppress people.

Example: “I am absolutely ignorant of, as you say, `the pleasure of doing nothing´. As soon as I no longer hold a book in my hand, or dream of writing one, a lamentable boredom [0*] seizes me. In short, life seems to me to be bearable only by trickery. Or else one must give oneself up to disordered pleasure [+sA]… and even then!” (Gustav Flaubert to George Sand)²¹⁰

Burn-Out

Dedicated to my daughter Barbara.

P is usually too identified with the +*, which he/she sacrifices him/herself for.
In other words, P burns for something +* and then burns out. P is full of experiencing a high at first and eventually exploiting his/her Self.
At the same time, P needs too much energy to fend off what he experiences as absolutely negative (‒*).

Example

Yes, I know from where I came!
Ever hungry like a flame,
I consume myself and glow.
Light grows all that I conceive,
Ashes everything I leave:
Flame I am assuredly.
F. Nietzsche, Ecce Homo.

Pain

Every It/sA may cause pain: a +sA if it is being lost, a ‒sA or ‒0 if it appears or may appear. It mainly concerns the sA that are effective in aspects 7 and 23. When it comes to sA in aspect 23, it is mainly about traumas and injuries that affect the absolute area of a person and/or absolutizations that prevent the development of effective protection.
S. Freud noted that nothing hurts as much as the loss of a love object (sA).
[+A however, can never be lost – only the belief in it.]
Painful situations can also occur during positive processes (pain during childbirth, pain during a separation). However, these are usually temporary, do not become chronic, and have positive results. (“Your pain today is your freedom tomorrow”).

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorders

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) occurs:

Objectively from a confrontation with death, serious injury, sexual abuse, rape, violent assault, kidnapping, terror, war, torture, imprisonment, disaster, accident, or diagnosis of a life-threatening illness. It can be experienced personally or through another person.
Subjectively, through intense fear, helplessness, or shock. [Quoted from DSM-IV, 1996].

There are highly differentiated treatment concepts based mainly on behavioral principles. I believe that an extension of these concepts to include good spirituality or religion would be reasonable for the following two reasons:
1) Statistics show that people who are religious or spiritual have a better chance of recovery..²¹¹

2) PTSD’s have to do especially with relationships between perpetrators and victims and the context of death issues. I believe that these difficulties are of existential (absolute) importance to the people involved and therefore best resolved on the basis of good faith. Why? As PTSD therapists suggest, trauma is best rehabilitated when there is a secure and trusting relationship between the victim and the therapist.
Perpetrators are usually not available. However, a belief in a just or even vengeful God¹ may provide more relief for victims than the options available to a therapist. Another difficulty is resolving the victim’s feelings of guilt, revenge, and aggression that accompany traumatization. At best, this means surrendering to a higher power such as God. More specifically: An important problem is that the victim often begins to see himself or herself as a potential perpetrator, or may become one, and is unable to reconcile both roles in a satisfactory way unless he or she gives the problem to a higher authority. This higher authority (God¹) is able to avenge the victim if the perpetrator does not repent of his behavior, and may show mercy if the victim himself becomes a perpetrator and repents of his actions.
As for the aforementioned “confrontation with death,” it is a matter of faith whether death is the last or not. Why should a psychotherapist convey a negative belief, or no belief at all, when there are as many (or more) reasons for an afterlife? Why should a psychotherapist not convey a belief that reflects a relieving and liberating possibility? ²¹²

Communication Disturbances

See Complex Personal Dynamics and Relationship Disorders elsewhere..

ADHD

Some brief therapeutic remarks to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD):
Avoid black or white thinking about medications! Just like medications for other mental illnesses, they should be used as “mental crutches. They do not cure, but they can keep the person from falling apart. If the affected child in the family is overwhelmed and the symptoms cannot be compensated, medication is usually a reasonable option. However, the dose should be relatively low, so that the symptoms are not completely eliminated, but remain to some extent. Too much medication deprives children of the opportunity to develop complex skills.

See also G. Hüther, section “Problem antipsychotics“

There are very good behavioral therapies, but they are often too focused on total symptom elimination. It seems to me that it makes sense to sometimes consciously practice symptoms, to avoid a fixation on total symptom elimination, and to let the child know that it is unconditionally loved beyond any symptoms and performance.
An accompanying family therapy is also important, not to find fault with the parents, but to relieve them, to strengthen them and to loosen unnecessary and overburdening attitudes. In the sense of “primary psychotherapy”, as described later in this work, attempts at change are ultimately secondary and subordinate to the unconditional acceptance of all involved.

Alzheimer´s

A hypothesis regarding Dementia

I am convinced that psychic disintegration precedes cerebral disintegration. It is known that mental trauma can cause changes in the brain. In my experience, emotional trauma is a common cause of dementia. Older people are increasingly confronted with existential problems (loss of meaning, serious illness, death of relatives, etc.) that are not usually diagnosed as traumas, but are often experienced in the same way. In addition to these traumas, any demands can be experienced as negative Absolutes when the person is no longer able to compensate for what he or she was able to do before the illness, but is no longer able to do now.²¹³
In terminology of this work, the older person is no longer able to reach his/her +sA, to fend off the ‒sA and to fill inner emptiness (0).

If the person also fights against forgetting, his chances are even worse. He is like the stutterer who fights against stuttering and then stutters even more. Another way to understand Alzheimer’s is to think of it as a brain burnout. The SA burns out because it can no longer be served by the person. And with them goes their spirit. They burn out like dying stars and remain in the brain only as dead nerve cells.
Everyone has experienced being blocked from thinking and remembering in some everyday situation because of some unresolved problem. Why should this temporary mechanism not become chronic and somatized?
It should also be mentioned that such psychodynamic hypotheses are rarely pursued because they are not a source of income for the pharmaceutical companies, whereas billions of dollars are earned only with the pharmacotherapy of dementia.

Addiction

See `Addiction´ in Metapsychiatry.

Others

I suspect that many diseases that are not primarily organic, such as psychosomatic diseases in general, but also many that have multifactorial causes, such as epilepsy, rheumatism, migraine, irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn’s disease, asthma, etc., are caused less by genetics than by basic pre- or postnatal psychic reasons due to certain It/sA.

Repetition for Clarification

Psychic illness can also be caused by the process of trying to find deep solutions, which is reflected in the term “progressive illness.
The idea that a healthy person acts more correctly than a sick person, or that a healthy person is even a better person, is false. In the Christian field, there are often misconceptions about the relationship between “sin” and disease, based mostly on certain parts of the Old Testament. In particular, the assumption that a sick person must be some kind of sinner is very common. Jesus disagrees with this misunderstanding. We cannot automatically assume closeness to God or strong faith just because someone is healthy and well, just as pain, sorrow or illness does not indicate distance from God or a lack of faith. On the other hand, there are positive correlations between good faith and health, as I try to explain in this book.

About Anti-Psychiatry

The list of `anti-psychiatrists´ is long. I will name the most important ones: Silvano Arieti, Franco Basaglia, Fred Baughman, Ernest Becker, Clifford Beers, Lauretta Bender, Richard Bentall, Peter Breggin, Paula Caplan, Ted Chabasinski, Judi Chamberlin, David Cooper, Lyn Duff, Michel Foucault, Jan Foudraine, Leonard Roy Frank, Erving Goffman, James Gottstein, Otto Gross, Jacques Lacan, R. D. Laing, Peter Lehmann, Theodore Lidz, Kate Millett, J. Moncrieff, Loren Mosher, David Oaks, Elizabeth Packard, Sascha Scatter, David Smail, Thomas Szasz, Stephen Ticktin, Robert Whitaker and others.
Some of their publications are listed in the bibliography.
The anti-psychiatrists had/have different professions and criticized the established psychiatry in diverse ways. The criticism varied from radical denial to suggestions for improvement.
I believe it was a failure of mainstream psychiatry not to incorporate reasonable anti-psychiatric views. It is unfortunate that psychiatry and anti-psychiatry are pitted against each other in the literature. I would therefore prefer to call it ‘complementary psychiatry’ rather than ‘anti-psychiatry’.

Abbreviations of all Parts

+ = positive
− = negative
¹ = first-rate or primary
² = second-rate (or secondary) not to be confused with coordinate
→ = ‘see or `result is´.
* = Sign for absolutizing and / or dominance. (Often used to point to an absolutizing.)
| = a sign that the German original version has been shortened at this point.
# = contradiction
A = the Absolute (+A = positive Absolute, −A = negative Absolute)
All (∀) = here strange everything, which stands in opposition to the nothing(ness).
asp. = aspect
BLQC = being, life, qualities, connections
C = general abbreviation for complexes that dominate personal and other areas of reality.
D = Dynamism D¹ = first-rate D., D² = second-rate D.
DM = Dimensions
DM = Defense-mechanisms
e.g. = exempli gratia (for example)
etc. = et cetera
God¹ = I partly write God¹ to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology. → “Christian” One-Sidednesses and Misinterpretations.
I = I in general ( I¹ = first-rate I, I² = strange I = Ego)
i.e. = id est (that is)
It = dominating entity/instance, consisting of 2 or 3 cores:
    2 parts: all and nothing (∀/ 0) = `dyad’ or
    3 parts: pro-sA or + sA, contra-sA or -sA and 0 = `triad’
It/sA resp. It/sS: if I want to emphasize the absolute role of an It-part.
KW = keyword = headword
ns = new-strange/ new-second-rate (new secondary)
No. = Number
P = Person; P¹ = first-rate personality; P² = second-rate personality (often only P labeled)
pr = psychically relevant
r = relative
R = the Relative (R represents everything that is not A or 0.)
R* = Relativistic
resp. = respectively
s = strange = second-rate (²)[1]
sA = strange resp. second-rate Absolute
             pro-sA and contra-sA = opposing sA.
             asA = absolutistic strange Absolute
             rsA= relativistic strange Absolute
s0 (or 0) = strange, determining nothing(ness) = nihilistic
sS = strange Self
syn. = synonym
W = World, reality
WPI = world, person, I.

References of the unabridged German edition

Arieti, Silvano: Schizophrenie. Piper, München-Zürich, 9. edition 2006.
Arieti, Silvano: Understanding and Helping the Schizophrenic; Basic Books. Inc., New York 1979.
Auster, Paul: Die New-York-Trilogie; Rowohlt, 1998.
Auster, Paul: The New York Trilogy; Faber and Faber Ltd. London, 2011.
Avenarius, R.: Nervenarzt, 44.Jg. H.5, 1973 p.238.
Bandler, Richard und John Grinder: Metasprache und Psychotherapie; Junfermann-Verlag Paderborn, 1981.
Bateson, Gregory et al.: Schizophrenie und Familie, Suhrkamp TB, 1978.
Bateson, Gregory et al.: http://solutions-senter.org/pdf/TOWARD-A-THEORY-OF-SCHIZOPHRENIA-2.pdf
Becker, Vera: Die Primadonnen der Psychotherapie. Junfermann, Paderborn, 1989.
Benedetti, G. et al: Psychosentherapie; Hippokrates-Verlag, Stuttgart 1983.
Berg-Peer, Janine: Schizophrenie ist scheiße, Mama! Fischer TB, Frankfurt aM, 2013.
Binder, Hans: Die menschliche Person; H. Huber-Verlag Bern, 1964, p 204.
Biser, Eugen: Theologie als Therapie; Verlag für die Medizin Dr. Ewald Fischer, Heidelberg, 1985, p 47.
Bleuler, Eugen: Lehrbuch der Psychiatrie. Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1983.
Böker W., Brenner HD: (Hrsg.): Bewältigung der Schizophrenie. Hans-Huber; Bern, Stuttgart, Toronto (1986).
Bollas, Christopher: Der Schatten des Objekts. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 2005.
Borsche, Tilman Hrsg.: Klassiker der Sprachphilosophie; C.H. Beck Verlag, München. 1996.
Bovet, Theodor: Der Glaube Erstarrung und Erlösung; Paul-Haupt Verlag, Bern 1947.
Bowels, Paul: Himmel über der Wüste; Rowohlt TB, 1991, p 197.
Bowen, M. in: Schizophrenie und Familie; Suhrkamp Verlag Frankfurt a.M. 1978, p 182. Breggin, P. R. (1997). Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry: Drugs, Electroshock and the Role of the FDA. New York: Springer Publishing Company.NY, 2008.
Breggin, P. R. (2012). Psychiatric Drug Withdrawal: A Guide for Prescribers, Therapists, Patients and their Families. New York: Springer Publishing Company.
Breggin, P. R. The Heart of Being Helpful: Empathy and the Creation of a Healing Presence, Paperback published 2006 by Springer Publishing Company.
Brinkmann N.: Die deutsche Sprache Gestalt und Leistung; Düsseldorf, 1962.
Brockhaus Enzyklopädie in 24 Bd. 19. edition F.A. Brockhaus, Mannheim, 1986.
Bucher, Anton: Psychologie der Spiritualität, Handbuch; Beltz PVU.
Büchner, Georg: Dantons Tod; z.B. Reclam, Stuttgart, 2001.
Büchner, Georg: Leonce und Lena; z.B. Studienausgabe, Reclam, Stuttgart, 2001.
Cardenal, Marie: Schattenmund; Rowohlt TB-Verlag, 1988.
Caruso, Igor, A.: Psychoanalyse und Synthese der Existenz. Freiburg, 1952.
Chomsky, Noam: Sprache und Geist. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt a.M. 1970.
Ciompi, Luc: Affektlogik. Klett-Cotta-Verlag Stuttgart, 1982.
Daim, Wilfried: Umwertung der Psychoanalyse. Herold Verlag Wien, 1951.
Daim, Wilfried: Tiefenpsychologie und Erlösung Herold Verlag Wien, 1954.
Dawkins, Richard: Der Gotteswahn, Ullstein TB, 2008. The God Delusion, Houghton Mifflin, 2006, p 23.
Dettmering, Peter: „Zwillings- und Doppelgängerphantasie, Königshausen & Neumann-V., Würzburg 2006.
Deutsches Fremdwörterbuch (DFWB). Bearbeitung von Gerhard Strauss, Elke Donalies, Heidrun Kämper-Jensen Verlag: Walter de Gruyter & Co; Auflage: 2. edition 1995.
Drewermann, Eugen: Psychoanalyse und Moraltheologie. Bd.1, Bd. 2 Matthias Grünewald Verlag, Mainz 1984.
Drewermann, Eugen: Tiefenpsychologie und Exegese. Bd.II Walter Verlag Olten und Freiburg i.Br., 1986.
Drewermann, Eugen: Sünde und Neurose… in: Münchener Theologische Zeitschrift 31, 1980.
Duden, Das große Fremdwörterbuch. Duden-Verlag, 1994.
Duden Grammatik : Bibliographisches Institut Mannheim Wien Zürich. Dudenverlag 3. Auflage, 1973. Eigen, Michael: The Psychotic Core , Jason Aronson Inc. Publishers;: New edition (Juni 1993)
Encyclopedia of Psychology and Religion; Eds. David A. Leeming, Kathryn Madden, Stanton Marlan, Springer, 2010.
Evangelischer Erwachsenen Katechismus, Gütersloh, 6. edition 2000.
Finzen, Asmus: Schizophrenie; Psychiatrie Verlag, Köln 2. Auflage, 2013.
Foudraine, Jan: „Wer ist aus Holz?“ R. Pieper & Co.Verlag, München, 1974.
Frank, Gunter: Schlechte Medizin, Knaus; 1. edition 2012.
Frankl, Viktor E.: Das Leiden am sinnlosen Leben. Herder Freiburg-Basel-Wien, 1980, p 98.
Frankl, Viktor E.: Der unsichtbare Gott. Kösel Verlag, 1974.
Freud, Sigmund: Abriss der Psychoanalyse; Fischer Verlag (Taschenbuch), 1983.
Freud, Sigmund: Gesammelte Werke Bd. XIV p 378.
Fromm, Erich: Die Kunst des Liebens. Ullstein Taschenbuch Verlag, 1985.
Fromm, Erich: To Have or to Be. Harper & Row, 1976.
Fuchs, Thomas: Die Psychiatrie, Schattauer, 4/2010, p 236.
Glasenapp von, Helmuth et al.: Das Fischer-Lexikon. 1. Die nichtchristlichen Religionen , Fischer-V. Frankfurt a.M. , 1957.
Gödel, Kurt: Über formal unentscheidbare Sätze der Principia Mathematica und verwandter Systeme I. Monatshefte für Mathematik und Physik 38, 1931, p 173–198.
Goethe, Wolfgang: z.B. Divan, Notizen und Abhandlungen; Faust.
Greenberg, Joanne: `I never promised you a rose garden´. St. Martin´s Paperbacks, 2009.
Gruen, Arno: Der Verrat am Selbst. DTV, München, 2005.
Green, Hannah (Greenberg, Joanne): I Never Promised You a Rose Garden, Holt, 1964.
Gruen, Arno: Der Wahnsinn der Normalität. DTV, München, 2004.
Guareschi, G., Don Camillo und Peppone; Rowohlt TB, 1995.
Gunderson John G.;  Loren R. Mosher, ,Aronson “Psychotherapy Of Schizophrenia, New York City, 1975.
Harold F. Searles  Collected Papers on Schizophrenia and Related Subjects , karnac, 1986.
Hasler, Felix: Neuromythologie. Transcript Verlag, Bielefeld. 3. edition 2013.
Heidegger; M. In: Die Sprache. Hrsg. Bayerische Akademie der schönen Künste. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt, 1959, p 93.
Heimann, H.: Psychiatrie der Gegenwart Bd. I/l. Springer Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1979.
Heintel, Erich: Einführung in die Sprachphilosophie. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt, 1972.
Heisenberg, Werner: Sprache und Wirklichkeit in der modernen Physik. p 194 zit. bei Hoffmann p 139.
Hellinger, Bert: „Zweierlei Glück“, Carl-Auer Verlag 2010.
Hesse, Hermann: Die Fiebermuse; Das Glasperlenspiel, Stufen.
Hölderlin, Friedrich: Der Tod des Empedokles, II,4; Hyperion, Frankfurt a.M. Insel-Verlag. 1983.
Hofmannsthal, Hugo von, Die Gedichte und kleinen Dramen, Insel-V., Leipzig, 1923, p 3.
Hofmannsthal, Hugo von: Der weiße Fächer. Ebd. p 136.
Horney, Karen: Neurose und menschliches Wachstum;
    Aus Yalom: Was Hemingway von Freud hätte lernen können. p 35.
Horney, Karen: Neurosis and human growth. NewYork, W.W. Norton, 1950.
Horvath, Ödön von: Der ewige Spießer. Frankfurt, Suhrkamp, 1987.
Humboldt, W.v.: zitiert bei Stenzel.
International Dictionary of Psychoanalysis, ed. by Alain de Mijolla, Detroit [u.a.] :
    Thomson/Gale, 2005, (PDF) Jackson, Murray (Author), Paul Williams Unimaginable Storms:
    Search for Meaning in Psychosis karnac, 1994.
Janov, Arthur: The Primal Scream; Abacus London, 1973.
Jaspers, Karl: Allgemeine Psychopathologie. Springer Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1973.
Jaspers, Karl: Die großen Philosophen, Piper-V. München, 5. edition 1995.
Josuran, R., Hoehne, V., Hell, D.: Mittendrin und nicht dabei. Verlag AG Zürich, 1999.
Jung C.G. In: Psychotherapie und Seelsorge. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt 1977, p 182.
Jung, W.: Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. Bibliographisches Institut Leipzig, 1973.
Kaiser, Peter: Religion in der Psychiatrie. V&R unipress Göttingen 2007 (Net).
Karon, Bertram P.: Psychotherapy of Schizophrenia: The Treatment of Choice, Jason Aronson, Inc. 1977.
Karon, Bertram P.: Psychotherapy versus medication for schizophrenia. In: Fisher, S. Greenberg, R.P.:
    the Limits of Biological Treatments of Psychological Distress. Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1989.
Kaufmann L., Luc Diskussionsbeitrag. In: Psychotherapie und Sozialtherapie der Schizophrenie.
    Hrsg. H. Stierlin, L.C. Wynne, M. Wirschnig.
    Springer Verlag, Berlin-Heidelberg-New-York-Tokio, 1985, p 284/285.
Keller A. Albert: Sprachphilosophie. Freiburg i.Br.-München Aber-Verlag, 1979.
Kellerhals, Emanuel: Der Islam. Brendow-V. Moers, 1993, 3. Ed.
Kielholz, A. In: Psychotherapie und Seelsorge. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt 1977.
Kisker, K.P., H. Freyberger, H.K. Rose, E. Wulff: `Psychiatrie, Psychosomatik, Psychotherapie´,
    Georg Thieme-V. Stuttgart, 1991.
Klemperer, Victor: LTI: Notizbuch eines Philologen. Reclam Universalbibliothek, Leipzig, 2. edition, 1968.
     English Translation: The Language of the Third Reich, LTI. © The Atione Press 2000.
Klessman, Edda & Horst-Alfred: Heiliges Fasten und heilloses Fressen;
    Hans Huber-V. Bern, Stuttgart, Toronto. 1988.
Klöppel, Renate: Die Schattenseite des Mondes; Rowohlt TB, Reinbek, 2004.
Klußmann, Rudolf: `Psychotherapie´. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg… 3. edition, 2000.
Kondakow, N.I.: Wörterbuch der Logik; deb Verlag, Westberlin, 1978.
Koran (Qur´an), Die ungefähre Bedeutung des Koran, Hrsg. Lies Stiftung 11. edition 2013.
Küng, Hans: Projekt Weltethos, Piper München, 1990.
Läpple, Volker & Joachim Scharfenberg (Hrsg.): „Psychotherapie und Seelsorge“;
    Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1977.
Laing, Ronald, D.: The Divided Self. Penguin Books, London, 1990.
Lauveng, Arnhild: Morgen bin ich ein Löwe – wie ich die Schizophrenie besiegte; btb München, 2008.
Lehmann, Peter (HG.): Psychopharmaka absetzen; Antipsychiatrie Verlag, 2. edition, Berlin, 2002.
Lennox, John: Hat die Wissenschaft Gott begraben? R. Brockhaus Verlag; 2. edition Wuppertal 2002.
Lessing, Gotthold Ephraim: Minna von Barnhelm.
Liebrucks, Bruno: Sprache und Bewußtsein. Akademische Verlagsgesellschaft Frankfurt a.M. Bd. II, 1965. Little, Margaret: Transference Neurosis & Transference Psychosis  Jason Aronson, Inc.; First Softcover Edition (7, 1977).
Loch, Wolfgang (Hg.): Die Krankheitslehre der Psychoanalyse. S. Hirzel-V. ,Stuttgart, 1977.
Lurker, M.: Wörterbuch der Symbolik.-Alfred Kröner Verlag Stuttgart. 1988.
Lütz, Manfred: Irre! Wir behandeln die Falschen – unser Problem sind die Normalen. Gütersloher Verl. 2009.
Mackler, Daniel: Film: Take These Broken Wings — Recovery from Schizophrenia without Medication.
Mann, Thomas: Joseph und seine Brüder. Aufbau Verlag Berlin, 1974, Bd. 4, p 7.
Mentzos, Stavros: Neurotische Konfliktverarbeitung;. Frankfurt a.M., Fischer TB,1992.
Mertens, Wolfgang: Psychoanalyse. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart u.a., 1992.
Meyers Großes Taschenlexikon. In 24 Bd. 4. edition Bd I. Taschenbuchverlag, Mannheim et al. 1992.
Miller, James: Die Leidenschaft des Michel Foucault“ Kiepenheuer & Witsch 1995.
Miller, James: Die Leidenschaft des Michel Foucault“ Kiepenheuer & Witsch, 1995.
Miller, James: The Passion of Michel Foucault; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1993.
Mosher, Loren R (Chief of the Center for Studies of Schizophrenia in the National Institute of Mental Health (1968–1980), Soteria Project.“ Cit. “Psychiatry is bought by the pharmaceutical industry …“
    keyword: non-drug treatments of schizophrenia.
Müller P.: Einige Aspekte zur Neuroleptika-Wirkung auf die psychosoziale Entwicklung schizophrener Patienten,     In: W. Böker und H.D. Brenner (1986).
Pasternak, Boris: Gedichte, Verlag Volk und Welt, Berlin 1969, p 189.
Pasternak, Boris: Doktor Schiwago. (wahrscheinlich Fischer TB) p 20.
Peters, Uwe-Hendrik: Lexikon Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie, medizinische Psychologie, 5. Ed. Urban & Fischer,
    1999.
Pfeifer, Samuel: Die Schwachen tragen; Brunnen Verlag, Basel und Gießen, 2. Ed. 1990.
Philosophisches Wörterbuch, VEB Bibliographisches Institut, Leipzig, 1970.
Philosophisches Wörterbuch, Hrsg. Schischkoff, G., Alfred Kröner Verlag Stuttgart, 1991.
Podvoll, Edward M.: Recovering Sanity: A Compassionate Approach to Understanding and Treating Psychosis,
    Shambhala, 2003.
Psychotherapie und Seelsorge: Hrsg. Volker Läpple & Joachim Scharfenberg,
    Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt 1977.
Ratzinger, Josef: Jesus von Nazareth; Herder, Freiburg im Breisgau, 2007.
Resnik, Salomon: The Delusional Person: Bodily Feelings in Psychosis karnac, 2001.
Reza ,Yasmina: in „Kunst“ (Theaterstück)
Richter, Horst-Eberhard : Eltern, Kind und Neurose. Rowohlt TB Verlag, 1983.
Richter, Horst-Eberhard: Der Gotteskomplex. Rowohlt Verlag, Hamburg. 1979.
Riemann, Fritz: Grundformen der Angst. Reinhardt Ernst-V. 40.edition 2011.
Rolland, R.: Das Leben Tolstois. Rütten und Loening, Berlin 1967, p 54.
Roth, Joseph: Juden auf Wanderschaft. Gesammelte Werke Bd 3 Allert de Lange Verlag Amsterdam, 1976 p 293.
Ross, Werner: Der ängstliche Adler, Friedrich Nietzsches Leben, TB, München, 1984.
Rudolf, Gerd, Peter Henningsen, Hrsg.: Psychotherapeutische Medizin und Psychosomatik. 6. Ed. Thieme-V.,
    2007.
Sachse, Ullrich: Traumazentrierte Psychotherapie; Schattauer, Stuttgart, 2004.
Safranski, Rüdiger, Goethe und Schiller; Fischer TB frankfurt a.M., 2013.
Sartre, Jean-Paul: Geschlossene Gesellschaft.
Saint-Exupéry, Antoine de: Aus „Dem Leben einen Sinn geben“ Karl Rauch Verlag, Düsseldorf, 1957.
Scharfetter, Christian: Schizophrene Menschen. Urban u. Schwarzenberg, München-Weinheim, 1986.
Schischkoff, Georgi: Philosophisches Wörterbuch. Alfred Kröner-V. Stuttgart, 22. Ed. 1991.
Schneemann, N.: Sprache und Psychopathologie. Nervenarzt 44, p 359-366, Springer Verlag 1973.
Schweitzer, Albert: In: Ausgewählte Werke, Bd. 1, p 161 Union Verlag Berlin.
Sechehaye, Marguerite: Tagebuch einer Schizophrenen, Edition Suhrkamp, 1973.
Selvini Palazzoli, Mara, l. Boscolo, G. Cecchin, G. Prata: Paradoxon und Gegenparadoxon, Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart,
    9. Ed. 1996.
Selvini Palazzoli, Mara, l. Boscolo, G. Cecchin, G. Prata: Paradox and counterparadox …,
    Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York et al. 2004.
Sheldrake, Rupert: The Science Delusions; by Cornet, 2012.
Siirala M.: Die Schizophrenie des Einzelnen und der Allgemeinheit. Vandenhoeck u. Ruprecht Göttingen, l96l.
Slobin, Dan: Einführung in die Psycholinguistik. Scriptor Verlag Kronberg/Ts., 1974.
Spierling, Volker: Kleine Geschichte der Philosophie. Piper-Verlag 5. Ed. 1997 p 244.
Stenzel J.: Philosophie der Sprache. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt, 1964 p 35ff, 108, 111.
Stich, Helmut: Kernstrukturen menschlicher Begegnung. Johannes Berchmans Verlag München l977.
Störig, Hans Joachim: Kleine Weltgeschichte der Philosophie. Fischer TB Verlag, 1998.
Straus E.W.: In: Psychiatrie der Gegenwart, Bd. I/2. Springer Verlag Berlin-Göttingen-Heidelberg 1963, p 927.
Strindberg: Aus „Ein Traumspiel”.
Stumm, Gerhard & Alfred Pritz (Hrsg.): Wörterbuch der Psychotherapie, Springer, Wien, New York, 2000.
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, Cambridge University Press 1999.
Tölle, Rainer: Psychiatrie 7. edition Springer Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York-Tokio, 1985, p 331.
Tolstoi, Alexander: Auferstehung; Wovon die Menschen leben.
Tschechow: Erzählung „Ariadna“.
Turgenjew, Iwan, in der Erzählung „Mein Nachbar Radilow“.
Ullmann, Ingeborg-Marie: Psycholinguistik-Psychosemiotik. Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht Verlag Göttingen,
    1975.
Vinnai, Gerhard: Die Austreibung der Kritik aus der Wissenschaft… www.vinnai.de/kritik.html ,2013.
Virapen, John und Leo Koehof: Nebenwirkung Tod; Das Neue Licht Verlag. 7/ 2012.
Volkan, Vamik D.: The Infantil Psychotic Self and its Fates, Jason Aronson, Inc. (March 1, 1995)
Wahl, Heribert: Christliche Ethik und Psychoanalyse. Kösel-Verlag München, 1980.
Wahrig: Deutsches Wörterbuch. Bertelsmann Lexikon Verlag GMBH, 6. edition, Gütersloh 1997.
Watzlawick, Paul : Vom Schlechten des Guten. Piper Verlag, München-Zürich, 1986.
Watzlawick, P., J.H. Beavin, D.D. Jackson : Menschliche Kommunikation…. Hans Huber, Bern-Stuttgart-Wien,
    1972.
Watzlawick, P., J.H. Weakland, R. Fisch : Lösungen. Hans Huber Verlag, Bern-Stuttgart -Wien, 1974.
Weinmann, Stefan: Erfolgsmythos Psychopharmaka; Psychiatrie-Verlag, 2008.
Weitbrecht, Hans Jörg: Psychiatrie im Grundriss. Springer, Berlin, 1963.
Whitaker Robert: Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental disorder in America, Crown, April 13, 2010.
Whorf , B. L.: Sprache, Denken, Wirklichkeit. Rowohlt Verlag, Hamburg, 1963, p 39.
Wiebicke, Jürgen: Dürfen wir so bleiben, wie wir sind?, Kiepenheuer & Witsch, Köln; 2013.
Wiesenhütter, E. Freud und seine Kritiker. Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft (WBG) – 1974.
Wolle Stefan: Die heile Welt der Diktatur. Econ TB, 2001, p 35.
Wöller, Wolfgang und Johannes Kruse: Tiefenpsychologisch fundierte Psychotherapie. Schattauer, Stuttgart,
    2005.
Wörterbuch der Logik von Hrsg. N.I. Kondakow, deb Verlag, Westberlin, 1978.
Wygotski, L.S.: Denken und Sprechen, Conditio humana. Hrsg. J. Helm, Stuttgart, 1969.
Wyss, Dieter: Die tiefenpsychologischen Schulen von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Göttingen, 1970.
Youtube movies of: Peter Breggin, Ann-Louise Silver, Bertram Karon, Daniel Dorman, Daniel Mackler,
    Diana Ross, Jenny Lynn, Sabeetha Nair, Lucy Holmes.
Zimbardo, Philip G.: Psychology and Life. Harper Collins Publishers. 12 .Ed. 1988.
Zweig, Stefan: The Struggle with the Daemon. Pushkin Press, 2015.

[Further references are also given in corresponding footnotes].

Comments

abgnu64 says:

2025-01-27 at 16:18

I am glad that you like my contribution but unfortunately I have too little time to go into it in more detail. Many thanks Torsten Oettinger

Reply
abgnu64 says:

2025-01-27 at 16:19

I am glad that you like my contribution but unfortunately I have too little time to go into it in more detail. Many thanks Torsten Oettinger

Reply
abgnu64 says:

2025-01-27 at 16:19

I am glad that you like my contribution but unfortunately I have too little time to go into it in more detail. Many thanks Torsten Oettinger

Reply
abgnu64 says:

2025-01-27 at 16:22

I am glad that you like my contribution but unfortunately I have too little time to go into it in more detail. Many thanks Torsten Oettinger

Reply
abgnu64 says:

2025-01-27 at 16:24

I am glad that you like my contribution but unfortunately I have too little time to go into it in more detail. Many thanks Torsten Oettinger

Reply
* * * Unlock Free Spins Today: http://indausinfra.com/upload/nsfhq0.php?lx871 * * * hs=aed63e6e0c9abf348b46dac7764a3436* says:

2025-01-31 at 00:22

y22xig

Reply
* * * Unlock Free Spins Today * * * hs=aed63e6e0c9abf348b46dac7764a3436* says:

2025-01-31 at 00:22

2xpet6

Reply
online pokies says:

2025-02-12 at 20:05

I’m curious to find ouut what blog systdm you are utilizing?
I’m having some minor security issues with my latest
blog and I would like to find something more safeguarded.

Do you have any solutions? https://Leon.bet/en-au/casino

Reply
* * * Unlock Free Spins Today: http://sbffood.in/upload/gcu3w8.php?c5pwcjx * * * hs=aed63e6e0c9abf348b46dac7764a3436* says:

2025-02-27 at 16:21

nutc51

Reply
* * * Claim Free iPhone 16 * * * hs=aed63e6e0c9abf348b46dac7764a3436* says:

2025-02-27 at 16:22

i5spfy

Reply
sonablate says:

2025-03-04 at 10:51

You actually make it appear really easy with your presentation however I in finding
this matter to be actually something which I believe I might
by no means understand. It seems too complex and very extensive for me.
I’m looking forward for your subsequent publish, I’ll try to get the grasp of it! https://menbehealth.wordpress.com/

Reply
https://smstkart.com/bdmbet-casino-reviews-play-new-games-using-your-account-and-get-up-to-hours-of-amusement-conditions-and-more/ says:

2025-03-21 at 23:03

Hi there mates, how is everything, and what you
would like to say concerning this piece of writing, in my view its genuinely
amzzing in support of me. https://smstkart.com/bdmbet-casino-reviews-play-new-games-using-your-account-and-get-up-to-hours-of-amusement-conditions-and-more/

Reply
Fletcher says:

2025-03-24 at 18:45

An outstanding share! I’ve just forwarded this onto a friend who had been conducting a little homework on this.
And he in fact bought me lunch simply because I discovered it for
him… lol. So allow me to reword this….
Thank YOU for the meal!! But yeah, thank for spending the time to discuss
this topic here on your webb site. https://unravellingmag.com/dialogue/week-languages-october-28-2016/

Reply
http://Boyarka-inform.com/ says:

2025-03-30 at 17:15

Hi I am so glad I found your site, I really found you by error, while I was browsing on Aoll for something else,
Anyways I am here now and would just like to say thank
you for a fantastic pos and a all round interestig blog (I also love the theme/design), I don’t hazve
timme to read itt all aat the minute but I havve saved it and
also added in your RSS feeds, so when I have time I will be back to read a lot more, Please do keep up the superb work. http://Boyarka-inform.com/

Reply
* * * Get Free Bitcoin Now: http://architectiqueinteriors.com/?t2xz47 * * * hs=aed63e6e0c9abf348b46dac7764a3436* says:

2025-03-31 at 09:02

d6dnv0

Reply
* * * Claim Free iPhone 16 * * * hs=aed63e6e0c9abf348b46dac7764a3436* says:

2025-03-31 at 09:03

ja8x6g

Reply
Dissertation Assistance says:

2025-04-01 at 21:15

I like what you guys are usually up too. Thiss sort of clever work
and exposure! Keep up the awesome works guys I’ve incorporated yyou guys to blogroll. https://icqpro.Com.br/employer/experienced-researcher-and-writer/

Reply
Humble says:

2025-04-02 at 19:01

Hi there everyone, it’s my first pay a visit at thyis website, and post is actuaally friitful designed for me,
keep up posting these typs of articles or reviews. https://Arlogjobs.org/employer/haun/

Reply
* * * Claim Free iPhone 16: https://mgfpatrimoine.com/?6fqk8g * * * hs=aed63e6e0c9abf348b46dac7764a3436* ххх* says:

2025-04-12 at 03:51

7fzwpa

Reply
* * * Snag Your Free Gift * * * hs=aed63e6e0c9abf348b46dac7764a3436* ххх* says:

2025-04-12 at 03:51

7fzwpa

Reply

METAPSYCHIATRY

Abstract

Definition

Prototype: Ideologies

“Primordial inversion”: Adam and Eve

Great and Everyday Inversions

Inversion and Behavior

Inversion and Sin

Inversion and Repression (Freud)

Inversion and ‘Contra-Inversion’

Individual and Societal Inversions

Symbolic Images of Inversions

How are Inversions Expressed? – Linguistic Analysis

Overview of the most important Inversions with their Results

Importance of Inversions for the Development of Mental Illnesses (Interim result)

Why Did I Choose the Term ‘It’?

`It’ with Similar Meaning by Other Authors

Brief Characterization and Definition of the It

Genesis of the Strange Absolute (sA)

+ Absolutizing of a relative Negative and ‒ Absolutizing of a relative Positive

+sA and ‒sA: Greatest Enemies and Best Friends

Life and Death as sA

Strange `Absolute Attitude´

The opposites and their dynamics

Main links regarding opposites in this publication

The Fusions (Pacts)

The Negations

Overview of all It-valences

Introduction and Overview

Terms

Structure of the Strange Self

Genesis of the Strange Self

The 7 aspects of the dimension of the personal It

Individual personal Its

The You as It

The `One’ as It

Monovalent sS/p It (monad)

Ambivalent sS/ p It (Dyad, Hermaphrodite)

Analogy of Characteristics of the It and the Mental Disorders

Introduction

Terms Regarding the Second-rate Realities/ Worlds (W²)

Overview of the Phases

Emergence of the Different Areas of W²

Roles of the It(s) in W² as Dictators, Parasites and Offenders

Hierarchies in W²

Hypotheses about the It-effects

About the Areas a1-762According to the classification in the Summary table.

About a1: Disturbance of the Absolute

About a2: Disturbance of Identity

About a3: Disturbance of Reality

About a4: Disturbance of Unity

About a5: Disturbance of the Unconditioned

About a6: Disturbance of the Priorities

About a7: Disturbance of Independence

The 4 Main areas of Differentiation

Change of Units

Comparison of the It-effects on the Reality in General and the Person Specifically.

Transference of the Its from Other Realities

Is the Strange It Some Kind of Homunculus within Us?

The Subject-Object-Reversal

Aspect 1: Personal Area of “All and Nothing”

Aspect 2: Worldview and View of God

Aspect 4: I and Others

Aspect 5: Spirit, Body, Mind

Aspect 6: Gender, Love, Sex

Aspect 7: Emotions

Aspect 8: Will

Aspect 9: Ownership

Aspect 10: Power and Abilities

Aspect 11 Order, Necessity

Aspect 12: Obligations, Orientation

Aspect 13: Rights, Allowances

Aspect 14: Creativity

Aspect 15: Actions/Behavior

Aspect 16: Information

Aspect 17: Presentation, Expressions

Aspect 18: Meanings, Relevance

Aspect 19: Past

Aspect 20: Present, Time

About the Areas a1-7⁶²