Author: Torsten Oettinger
2024-02-08, 10th Edition

Table of Contents


1. The `Summary table´ offers a very compressed textual and tabular overview. The links there allow the reader to quickly switch to the corresponding chapters and to keep the larger picture in mind.
2. The term `psychic´ (or `psychical´) is the exact equivalent of the German word `psychisch´, derived from the Greek `psȳchikós´, the soul. This term `psychic´ encompasses everything that concerns us (what I call the `psychic Relevant´), and not just the empirically proven, which is expressed by the terms ‘psychological’ and ‘mental’ and which are often used instead of `psychic´ in the English literature. Because of these conceptual limitations and confusions (like psychological unconscious, psychological resistance, psychological emotions, etc.), I use the term `psychic´ more often than usual, because it is broader than `psychological´ and `mental´.


In this part ‘METAPSYCHOLOGY’, I develop a general classification of what is psychically/psychologically relevant (including the psyche itself), based on the hypothesis that everything that is psychologically relevant (pr) can best be expressed through language and classified by analogy with language patterns and meanings.
I assume an analogy between language on the one hand and the psychological relevant and the psyche on the other. More about this Differentiations and Dimensions:
• First, I hypothesize that everything that is psychically, (psychologically) relevant is not only best expressed in language but can also be differentiated in analogy to basic language patterns. That´s what I name the `Differentiations´.
• Second, I assume that it is decisive what “fundamental meaning” the psychological Relevant one has.
Each psychological Relevant can have three fundamental meanings for us humans: absolute or relative or no meaning. These are what I call the ‘Dimensions‘ of the psychic Relevant.11. This is also the basic pattern of the classifications of in all the other chapters. 2. Because of their special role, I have capitalized the terms the psychic Relevant, the Absolute, the Relative, the Nothing, the It and the Self.


Psychiatry Psychology Linguistics Philosophy Religion Sociology Cultural Studies Metapsychology Metapsychiatry Metapsychotherapy


In the beginning was God,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God …(~ by John 1:1-4)2[Hint: I partly write God¹ to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]

Definitions and Hypotheses

• Metapsychology is the theory of everything which is psychically/psychologically relevant. 3I denote `everything that is relevant to the psyche shorter `the psychic Relevant´ (pR) to simplify matters. See regarding the terms psychic and psychological 2. Note above.4
• Anything a person talks or can talk about is psychically/psychologically relevant.
• The psychic/psychological Relevant is best expressed through language.
• General language structures are very suitable analogies for the division of the psychic/psychological Relevant.
• Psychology is the theory of the personal psychic/psychological Relevant.

Based on the multiple meanings of the prefix ‘meta’ (above, between, behind, beyond),
I define metapsychology as a level of analysis above psychology, from which the latter can be surveyed and questioned. At the same time, metapsychology encompasses and permeates all the disciplines associated with psychology. Among the disciplines related to psychology are, first and foremost, psychiatry, as well as sociology, anthropology, biology, neurology, and linguistics. But I also include philosophy and theology, some of which are superordinate.

The main subject of psychology is the psyche. The subject of metapsychology is everything that is important to the psyche, that interrelates with the psyche, that affects the psyche, and that can be reflected upon from a higher level. Therefore, metapsychology examines and reflects upon what I call the psychic Relevant (pR). The consideration of metapsychology and its subject matter, the psychic Relevant, is very appropriate because an isolated analysis of the psyche alone neglects very important connections.
In my opinion, all aspects of our human existence should be examined, rather than limiting our analysis to facts that are accessible only through scientific methods. This means that in addition to all the scientific findings of academic psychology, attention should also be paid to that which transcends our experience, which lies beyond the demonstrable and perceptible. Thus, all relevant meta-psychological, meta-empirical, philosophical, and religious phenomena of existential significance should be considered.
5Mike Lüdmann therefore laments the loss of general theory in psychology. According to Thomas Fuchs, however, research areas for philosophical questions in psychiatry have been established in the last 20 years, especially in Anglo-Saxon countries. (Both see Ref.)
In contrast to this perspective, the notion “metapsychology” is used – following Freud – by scholars of psychoanalysis to describe the dynamic, topical and economic interrelations of psychic phenomena.
Regarding the area of topography, Freud was primarily concerned with the concepts of the Ego, Id and Super-ego; regarding the area of psychodynamics, he investigated the mental forces between these entities of the psyche; regarding the area of economics, he examined the benefits of specific psychic processes for the person concerned.
This study also discusses structural, dynamic and qualitative aspects similar to the psychoanalytic ones. However, these are merely a small part of metapsychology and psychology and are presented from a different perspective. 6In this perspective, Freud’s` topography´ appears equivalent to the representatives of psychically relevant (pr) nouns and subjects; the dynamics equivalent to the pr verbs and predicates, and the economics equivalent to the representatives of the dimensions in particular.

In general, it can be said that none of the models offered by conventional medicine are able to transcend the anthropological perspective, i.e. they only look at the psyche and its illnesses from a “horizontal point of view”, which considerably limits the possibilities of analysis and therapy. In particular, the questions that are most important to a person and of existential significance are not answered, or are answered inadequately. Existentialists in particular have pointed this out.
 The part “Metapsychology” (similar to the other chapters) will be discussed first in general and then in more detail using specific examples. At the end of this chapter, I will briefly discuss some metapsychological topics that are important for this publication. This will be only a selection from a variety of topics, since all topics relevant to the person and especially studied in philosophy, anthropology, psychiatry, and psychology are psychically/psychologically relevant.
• First, I derive a general classification of everything that can be relevant to psyche and person from analogies to basic language patterns. In doing so, I assume that everything that is psychologically and personally relevant is best expressed through language. Like language, this “differentiation” includes everything that is psychologically and personally relevant. (Syntactic Classification).
• Second, I derive fundamental and existential meanings and dimensions of human existence from corresponding linguistic expressions. (Semantic Classification).
• Third, I discuss psychologically and personally relevant units in these distinctions and dimensions. I assume that all psychic and personal entities above a certain level are fundamentally differentiated and dimensioned in the same way.
• Fourth, in the part `Metapsychiatry´, I assume that psychic and personal disorders occur when fundamental existential dimensions are confused (= “inversions”).
(Pragmatic Classification).
This new classification leads to some new aspects in psychology and psychopathology..

The General Psychic Relevant

Introduction and Classification

In this chapter, that which is relevant to the psyche is investigated. 71. “Psyche” or “soul” is the personal form of the psychical Relevant (pR) .
       2. A solitary “R” stands for Relative.

– The psychical/psychological Relevant = pR; or psychically/psychologically relevant = pr.
Synonyms: psychic(al)/ psychological/ that which is  significant to the soul/ psyche.
– Pseudoabsolute = strange Absolute (sA), The Absolute = A = +A or -A. The Relative = R.

Almost all things are psychically/psychologically relevant (pr). It is difficult to imagine a subject that is not psychically relevant or that could not become so. The term “reality” may come as close as possible to that which is psychically relevant. If reality is defined as that which affects us, then reality is not only an objective but also a subjective matter.
It is a matter of differentiating the psychical Relevant (pR) and ordering its meaning. More precisely, it is about an adequate classification of reality and world, person, psyche, and individual according to their meaning for the human being himself.
[Sometimes in this work I use the abbreviation WPI for World, Person and Individual.]

I divide the psychical, (psychological) Relevant (or the reality) in general according to

• Differentiations
• Dimensions.

Regarding the differentiations I derive from the basic patterns of language both basic patterns of psychically/ psychologically relevant forms and those of the psyche. I’m referring here to simple grammars of developed languages.
The differentiations represent the `horizontal classification´ of the psychical Relevant.
I use several stages of differentiation and will briefly introduce the first one:
The four “main aspects”: forms of being, life, properties and their connections are derived from the three main word classes: nouns, verbs, adjectives and fourthly from syntax.
These will be further differentiated in the course of the study.

The dimensions represent fundamental meanings of the psychical Relevant.
I distinguish the following fundamental meanings:
– the Absolute (A) = absolute dimension
– the Relative (R) = relative dimension
– the Nothing(ness) (0). [For the special role of nothing, see later.]
I use these as keywords for similar fundamental meanings. (Later more)

The dimensions represent the `vertical classification´ of the psychical, (psychological) Relevant.

Taking differentiation and dimensioning together, the following picture emerges:

The psychical Relevant resp. the reality with its units is classified by differentiations and dimensions as by a horizontal and a vertical level. In the horizontal division, basic patterns of language differentiate the psychical Relevant in such a way as if one would lay a net with coordinates horizontally over what is to be determined for its order. This division is called horizontal because no evaluative assertion is made here about the importance and position of a particular object. But it is the vertical division, the “dimensions,” that provides information about it. (See `The absolute Perspective´ in part Metapsychotherapy).
Thus, this graph shows the classification of the psychical Relevant through language patterns in specific dimensions.
One can also say: The psychical Relevant is derived from what can be said about reality (persons, environment, etc.) and whether that has absolute or relative meaning or no meaning.

Classification Levels

I distinguish the following 3 stages in the classification of the psychical/ psychological Relevant
(dimensions and differentiations).

1st stage of dimensions:
the Absolute (A), the Relative (R) and
the Nothingness (0).
1st stage of differentiation:
4 main aspects: being, life, qualities, connections
(Abbr. BLQC)
2nd stage of dimensions:
7 synonyms of the Absolute and Relative
2nd stage of differentiation:
23 single aspects
3rd stage of dimensions:
All terms listed in the overview table, concerning fundamental meanings  or corresponding statements.
3rd stage of differentiation:
All terms listed in the overview table, concerning differentiations or corresponding statements.

Note: For simplicity, I usually use only the 1st dimension stage (AR0) for the dimensions in this script. For the differentiations, I usually use the 1st or 2nd stage. (More on this later.)


General Differentiations (Analogy Language and the Psychical Relevant)

Language and the Psychical Relevant

                                                        “Language is yet more than blood.”  Franz Rosenzweig

The differentiation of the psychical/psychological Relevant (pR)8pR = the psychical/psychological and personal Relevant. is based on the formation of analogies between patterns of language and patterns of what is psychically/psychologically relevant.
(This also includes the psyche itself → Grammar of the psyche.)

I repeat: the psychical, (psychological) Relevant can be classified horizontally or vertically. The horizontal division differentiates the psychical Relevant and the vertical division, with its dimensions, provides information about their fundamental meanings.
The differentiations resemble a grid, such as we use to divide the surface of the earth into longitudes and latitudes for better orientation. In the analysis of what is psychically relevant, it is language that provides these ‘longitudes and latitudes’ (‘horizontal division’), while the dimensions of the Absolute, Relative and Nothingness provide us with information about the ‘altitude’ (significance) of the subject matter (‘vertical division’).

No other instrument gives us as much information about what is psychically, (psychologically) relevant as language. Language has not only individual but also general meanings and forms of expression. Language seems to be the best method for capturing, describing, organizing, and reflecting everything that is important to people in relation to the world, their fellow human beings, and themselves.9I use for this the abbreviation ` WPI ´ = World, Person, I.

What does that mean in relation to psyche?
The psyche and its connections can only be determined indirectly. One can draw conclusions about the psyche and what is important to it from people’s behavior, from their dreams, from culture and art, from the history of mankind, or even from their language and from many other sources – but especially from language.

[E.g. Victor Klemperer: “… language not only writes poetry and thinks for me, it also directs my feeling, it controls my entire soul being, the more self-evidently, the more unconsciously I surrender myself to it.” (LTI, p 24)]

The content of psychology should be everything that concerns human beings. But what concerns human beings is primarily made orderly, understandable, and communicable through language. Don’t we learn most about the world and ourselves as human beings through what we say? If we use language as the most important source to infer the soul life of our patients, then this also corresponds to the general practice that what our counterpart says is in the foreground of the assessment of his person and situation.

In this way, I believe that language is the most important medium for people to express what concerns them. Language also has the advantage over other sources that it already has a structure and order that can be used to represent the contents and meanings of the psyche. Moreover, all psychological knowledge from other sources usually needs language to make its contents understandable and communicable.
For these reasons, isn’t language the best way to draw conclusions about our inner selves? I think so. Thus, language seems to be a first-rate metapsychological instrument/medium for structuring psychic things and making statements about their contents.

The special importance of language for thinking and cognition of human beings was already emphasized by Nietzsche, Heidegger and Wittgenstein. Language as an “inescapable condition or matrix of thinking and cognition. Keyword: ‘linguistic turn’.

Therefore, general, basic components of language turn out to be excellent analogies for the representation of general, psychically/psychologically relevant and psychical “basic elements” itself. Regarding the analogy of language and psyche, Lévi-Strauss and Lacan already had a similar thought when they postulated a “homology” of language structures and (but only) the unconscious, without further differentiating this as I do. 10E.g., see, 4, 2017.

I believe:

• Just as language differentiates our existence, I differentiate the psychical, (psychological) Relevant and the psyche. So I assume that basic characteristics of the language in relation to its structure, dynamics, and quality statements are similarly found in the psychical Relevant and the psyche.
• Regarding the psyche – this also means, that the psyche has similar characteristics to language in terms of its structure, dynamics, and meaning contents.

I think that in the development of language, in general language elements and rules, what has been important to people’s souls for thousands of years has been expressed first and foremost. What is important to them has been expressed not only by many different words and concepts, but also by corresponding types of words and phrases. Thus, through language, mankind has not only given names to certain phenomena, but it also reflects their interrelationships and functions as an expression of our psyche and its experience of the world. Therefore, general basic parts of language, such as the parts of speech, are excellent analogues for representing general psychically relevant “basic elements” – and syntax, in turn, gives us clues to analogous mental forms and their functions in the form of subject, object, predicate and their functions, and semantics shows their meanings.
Like language, I see the psyche as a highly differentiated system, which on the one hand has certain characteristics, but on the other hand is very flexible and always alive. In analogy to the grammar of language, one could speak of a Grammar of the psyche.

As I said, in this paper I use simple grammars of developed languages, which are essentially the same in their rules. But I can only deal with this topic briefly here.
On the analogy of language structures and structures of the psyche, see → Differentiations.
On the analogy between meanings in language and the psychical Relevant, see → Dimensions.

First stage of Differentiation

A basic classification found in almost all developed languages is one that distinguishes between nouns, verbs, and adjectives, and syntactically between subjects and predicates.
The table below shows the resulting psychically relevant analogies.

Therefore, what is both psychically (psychologically) and linguistically relevant can be divided into the following four main components:  Being, life, qualities and their connections.

In this book they are used as psychically relevant correlates. Their interplay takes place on different levels with different dimensions, which will be specified in a later chapter.
In analogy to language, this differentiation is extended to 23 aspects. This is the “second level of differentiation” of what is psychically relevant and of the psyche itself.
At the end of all differentiations one would find what all possible pr-words represent in their infinite variety.
Thus far, the following analogies were made in the first stage of differentiation:

I. Nouns           =  Being (= forms of being or pr units)
II. Verbs           =  Life (= dynamics)
III. Adjectives  Qualities
IV. Syntax        = subjects, objects and their Connections. 
Abbreviation:  (BLQC)

In the first stage of differentiation, these four main aspects of what is psychically, (psychologically) relevant have been determined. I believe they also reflect 4 important themes of humanity:
I. To be or not to be, II. Life or death, III. good or evil, IV. subject or object.
These in turn are embedded in the theme of the Absolute.
(See also:  Fundamental Problems in Metapsychotherapy).

Second stage of Differentiation

If we further differentiate the four main aspects mentioned above, the number of aspects will vary depending on the method used and the desired stage of differentiation.
In my experience, further differentiation into the following 23 single aspects is very helpful:

The single aspects of differentiation are differently dimensioned. In the 1st-5th units in the table above, the aspects of absolute importance are listed first, while aspects of relative importance are listed after the slash. Further explanations can be found in the unabridged German edition.

    The 3rd stage of differentiation is presented in the Summary table.

The method used here to categorize what is psychically, (psychologically) relevant, by determining analogies from language, has the advantage that the single aspects can be extended indefinitely so that any psychically relevant term can be integrated into the system.
In this study, I use mainly the 1st and 2nd stages of differentiation.

An objection to this kind of differentiation is that there are languages whose basic structures are completely different. In fact, even the most advanced languages have very different grammatical theories than the usual simple “school grammar” used here. This is certainly a valid objection. However, I believe that at a certain point, any kind of language and grammar can be used to express what is most important to a person. Otherwise, adequate translation into many different languages would not be possible! Therefore, the classification used here is only one of many ways to infer what is psychically, (psychologically) relevant from general forms of language. I deliberately use simple grammar (“school grammar”) because it best reflects everyday language use.
In addition to language, what is psychically relevant is reflected in many other ways: It is evident in our behavior, gestures, facial expressions, art, and much more. However, none of these forms of expression are as sophisticated and yet as understandable as language.


“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.
If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.” (Confucius)

“The word, according to its nature, is the freest among the spiritual creatures but also the most endangered and dangerous.
Therefore, watchmen of the word are necessary.” Hrabanus Maurus 11Cit. by H. Cibulka: Tagebücher, Halle (Saale), 1976, p. 137. Emphasis by me.

Similar Ortega y Gasset: ” …  it is by no means indifferent how we formulate things. The law of life perspective is not only subjective
but rooted in the nature of things … itself. … The mistake is to assume that it is up to our arbitrariness to assign things to their proper rank.”12[In: „Triumph des Augenblicks Glanz der Dauer“ DVA Stuttgart, 1983 S. 75ff. Translated by me.]

Explanation and Terms

In this work, the dimensions represent the hierarchy of the fundamental meanings of everything that is psychically, (psychologically) relevant.

`Fundamental meanings´ 

`Fundamental meanings´ (dimensions) means that they are about primordial meanings, about most fundamental, very first meanings of existence, behind which one cannot go back, which are not further questionable, but at most credible, and which grasp every psychically, (psychologically) relevant thing in its respective most fundamental meaning.

Similar terms to `fundamental meaning´ are: primordial, very first, basic, existential, essential ranks, determining, meaning, significance, -reference system, -scale, -position, -standpoint, -perspective, -importance, -priority, -order of precedence. In the following, I will mainly use the term `fundamental meanings´ or basic meanings as a collective term for the dimensions.

I postulate in the first stage of classification three dimensions of existence and the psychical relevant: absolute, relative or nothing.
Similar differences in meaning are made in language, with absolute words and absolute statements on the one hand, and relative words and relative statements on the other.

a) The Absolute is the most important, the most decisive, and the first-rate thing. 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 illnesses from this ultimate cause.
b) I use the term meaning´ to denote the importance, rank and sense of something.
c) What fundamental meaning a single psychically relevant thing has is ultimately a matter of faith. However, there is usually agreement on many points. For example, that money, status, appearances, etc. have no absolute meaning.

I mean that everything psychically relevant has one of these three meanings (ranks): either something has absolute or relative or (almost) no meaning. In the broadest sense you could say: Our existence, our world, every social and personal system and every human being with his psyche has these three basic dimensions.
This is a classification that includes every psychically relevant aspect and also says the most important thing about it. In contrast, for example, the categories “right or wrong,” “pleasant or unpleasant,” “mature or immature,” “logical or illogical,” and the like would not capture every psychically relevant thing, nor its most important, fundamental meanings.
When fundamental meanings are changed, all meanings in that system change.
(More see Inversions of these meanings, in section Metapsychiatry.)

As mentioned, I distinguish in the first stage of classification between these dimensions of the psychical, (psychological) Relevant (pR):           

• the Absolute (A)
• the Relative (R13Abbreviation: Relative = R.
I deliberately set the R in italics in order to distinguish this symbol from the abbreviation which denotes the (psychical) Relevant (R).

• the Nothing (0).  

The nothing plays a special role, which I will come back to. It only exists as a Pseudo-nothing (0²), because there is no ‘real nothing’ (nothing1). (In my opinion, this would be a consequence of −A). More on the Nothingness later.

As said, I use these terms as guiding concepts for the later named `7 synonyms´ 
in the 2nd stage of the dimensions.

The dimensions represent the ‘vertical classification’ of that which is psychically relevant.
[`Vertical´ means: from the highest and most fundamental point of view.] 
See `The absolute Perspective´ in part Metapsychotherapy].
They assign to the pr-units and differentiations the respective fundamental meaning:
an absolute or relative or no meaning                

Comparison of the most important fundamental meanings (2nd stage of classification)

first-rate / primarysecond-rate /secondary
1-7 = according to the absolute and relative synonyms

The absolute dimension is the decisive factor. The Absolute and the Relative have thoroughly different characteristics and effects. This fact is important when considering the theory of the genesis of mental disorders.
The Absolute (and the Nothingness) have a primarily “spiritual nature”, whereas  the Relative is more material. (See also the corresponding representatives later).
Absolute or relative adjectives are helpful in describing the nature of each dimension. They provide information as to whether forms of being and life, qualities and their relationships are of absolute, relative, or no importance.
In this study, the relative dimension is marked by gradable adjectives, while absolute adjectives serve to identify the absolute dimension.

An absolute adjective is an adjective with a meaning that is generally not capable of being intensified or compared. The gradable adjective means we can have different levels of that quality.

Classification Overview

Overall, I classify the dimensions into the following categories:
• their `spheres´ (absolute, relative, null = 1st classification stage;
   or to the corresponding 7 synonyms = 2nd classification stage),
• their ‘rank’ (first-rate, second-rate)
• their ‘orientation’ (pro/+, contra/‒, null)
• their place of occurrence (e.g.,  dimensions of the world, the person, the psyche, etc.)
    (More on that later.)
In this way, each pr phenomenon can  be classified according to the following categories:
absolute, relative or null (0); first-rate, second-rate; pro/+, contra/‒ or null, and by its location.

The Absolute

                                        Motto: The ground of things is the unconditioned, the Absolute. 14This is based on the following quote from Novalis: “We seek the unconditioned everywhere and find only things.” (NS II: 412, Nr. 1).

What concerns us absolutely? What is the original reason, the original cause of everything? What determines us the most? What is most important to us and absolutely necessary? Hunger and love? (F. Schiller). The drives and the unconscious? (S. Freud). The “chow”? (B. Brecht). 15B. Brecht in `Dreigroschenoper: ”Chow comes first; morality second.” Religion? (P. Tillich). Genes? Pleasure or reality? Ideologies? The laws of nature? The views differ. I call it the Absolute (A).

I believe: The Absolute is the determining spirit of every psychical, (psychological) Relevant (pR).
The Absolute is the decisive instance by which everything within its sphere of influence is ultimately directed. It is the primordial and original matter of everything. Therefore, everything can ultimately to be traced back to an Absolute. Since it is the foundation of our spiritual life, it is always with us. Our life is based on it. We stand or fall by our Absolutes. We live or die by it. But it is (like nothing else) neither provable nor comparable, at best credible, but still of existential importance. But if the Absolute is most important, why not put it at the center of a theory and practice that deals with human beings?
This idea is not new, but it has been forgotten.

In the past, the Absolute played an important role in the history of ideas: in Greek philosophy (Plato), in the Middle Ages with Anselm of Canterbury, Nicholas of Cusa, Thomas Aquinas and in the “modern era” with Spinoza, Jacobi, Moses Mendelssohn, Lessing, Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Søren Kierkegaard and later Adorno (to name just the most important).
At present, however, the Absolute hardly seems to play a role in philosophy – apart from sporadic “rescue attempts” by individual philosophers such as Gunnar Hindrichs16Hindrichs, Gunnar in `Das Absolute und das Subjekt´, Frankfurt am Main: Vittorio Klostermann, 2008.
(Statement: `In contemporary philosophy, metaphysical thinking seems to be outdated´, p. 8ff.))
and Sergi Avaliani, who philosophized about the pseudo-absolute.17See References.
And it is not without reason that only a few people still listen to theology that is directly related to the Absolute.

– But what is most important to people, the Absolute, is very different. I think everybody has their own Absolutes. Subjectively and individually, we have thousands of Absolutes: Gods we love with all our hearts, or devils and enemies we fear and hate. Some people think that security is the greatest good, while others think that health is the greatest good. A third group might say that the purpose of life is to be good people, while still others are convinced that progress is the greatest good. Others consider certain individuals to be the most important, and so on. In this way, each of us has his or her own view of life and frame of reference, with an Absolute at the center.
Most of the time, an individual’s parents and environment have a great influence on the development of this `framework’. Some of these worldviews are known by a specific name, as is the case with religions and ideologies, but others are not. I have found that even people who are members of a particular church have a variety of private beliefs that are often in stark contrast to their particular denomination. Therefore, a formal statement of belief in God based on an individual’s affiliation with a church may not be particularly meaningful. In addition to their formal religion, they may also believe in money, power, progress, a political party, their father, mother, wife, or simply themselves-and is there anyone among us who does not?18F. Nietzsche: „There are more idols than realities in the world …“ (Twilight of the Idols)
– But the most important thing can also be negative. It may seem most important to a person not to be immoral, not to be unfaithful, not to be dependent, or not to become like another person. This negative goal is then to be avoided at all costs, it is considered the worst possible outcome, an unacceptable state, the unforgivable, a mortal sin, or the like.
– In my opinion, all approaches to life, all world views, whether formalized or private, conscious or unconscious, have different Absolutes that are the basis of these world views and ideologies.
– The simple conclusion is that these Absolutes also determine the extent to which an individual is able to relate to himself, to other people, and to the world around him. Therefore, these respective Absolutes are also crucial for the genesis and therapy of mental illnesses.
– Viewing the Absolute as the core of the psyche is not a new concept. The philosopher Karl Jaspers claimed that the kind of God a person believes in determines his or her true being. (More precisely, one could say that the kind of God and the kind of devil a person accepts determines his true being.) S. Kierkegaard expressed similar thoughts. 191. Peter B. Rohde: Kierkegaard, Rowohlt 1998, p 37–42.
        2. Before this time, Plato, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Fichte discussed the `Absolute’.
        3. In materialism and similar systems, there is little scope for the Absolutes. (Schischkoff and The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy).
 In particular, the psychotherapists of the “Viennese School” (W. Daim and I. Caruso) were convinced that misabsolutizations are decisive for the emergence of mental disorders. Unfortunately, their work is not well known.

I distinguish
    • first-rate, actual Absolutes (A) 201. I know that many people do not believe that there is such a thing as a positive absolute (God?). I think that is unwise, because the positive Absolute, as I understand it, is the only thing that is not other-determining to us and does not demand anything.
2. The terms ‘actual´, `real’ and ‘first-rate’ as well as the terms ‘strange’ and ‘second-rate’ and the abbreviations : sA or A² are used synonymously. For the sake of simplicity, A usually stand for A¹. [Hint: I partly write Godto indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]

    • second-rate, strange Pseudo-Absolutes (sA).
    • subjective Absolutes
    • objective Absolutes.

All types may have positive or negative connotations. (The sA can also be ambivalent.)
That´s why I distinguish
    • an actual, positive/ or negative Absolute (+A/ ‒A)
    • strange, positive or negative (or ambivalent) Pseudo-Absolutes (+sA, ‒sA or ±sA).
       (More in the section `Metapsychiatry‘.)


The Absolute (A) also determines a person’s identity.
(This concept can be summarized in the mottoes: “I am like my A,” or alternatively, “My A is my life.”) In addition, the A is the ultimate creative sphere. Whatever a person places above himself becomes the Absolute. Although the Absolute cannot be proven, it can be experienced, and it is more or less obvious and plausible. It is not possible to prove the Absolute in general, nor is it possible to prove the Absolute of a person (his Self). It is only possible to believe in it.
In principle, the Absolute is a metaphysical or spiritual category, which means that we can only describe it in words or portray it by analogy or metaphor, etc. In this sense, it is inexpressible, elusive. It is a priori, a fundamental presupposition. The Absolute is defined only by itself. It is self-explanatory. 21Thus, it appears reasonable that God should say of himself “I am who I am”.
Hint: I partly write Godto indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.
 Different rules and characteristics apply to the sphere of the Absolute than to the sphere of the Relative. (This statement will prove particularly relevant when examining the effects of Inversions and the genesis of illnesses, as will be explained in the following chapters.)
Investigating the causes of mental disorders is ultimately (!) a search for the Absolute.
Similarly, the main and most important answers (therapy) are found in the sphere of the Absolute.

The 7 Synonyms of the Absolute (2nd stage of differentiation)

The character of the Absolute (A) becomes clearer when we look at the origin of the word:
It comes from the Latin word “absolutus” and means a thing or subject that is detached and independent.
In this study I will use the following 7 synonyms:

                1. absolute 22    The term `absolute´ is the keyword.         
                2. self
                3. actual
                4. whole, complete
                5. unconditional
                6. primary, first-rate
                7. independent
The term `absolute’ is the keyword.

Expressed nounically: The Absolute is the resolved, the Self (that which is identical with itself), the actual, the unified, the unconditioned, the primary and independent, the most important, the most essential and existential. It is the core, the center, the heart, the switching point, the center of the subject, etc. These qualities apply unconditionally to the `core-absolute’ and conditionally to the `also-absolute’. About `Core Absolute’ and `Also Absolute’ → next section.

Short Systematic Overview (optional)

Rank of the Absolute

According to the rank, I distinguish between actual, first-rate Absolutes and strange, second-rate Absolutes23 [Hint: first-rate and actual are synonyms24, and second-rate and strange are synonyms! I use these different names depending on the topic.]

• To the first-rate Absolutes (A¹):
         – the first-rate positive Absolute (+A¹)
         – the first-rate negative Absolute (‒A¹)
         – Especially: the personal “attitude toward the Absolute”, which I will discuss later. 25 For the sake of simplicity, I often identify the first-rate A instead of A¹ only with A.
For further details on the + A¹ and ‒A¹, see the chapter `Special metapsychological topics’

• To the second-rate, strange Absolutes (sA) = the Pseudoabsolutes
          –  positive/pro and negative/contra-sA (+sA and ‒sA)
          –  strange nothingness (s0 or only 0). 26I use the terms `positive’ and `pro’ as well as the terms `negative’ and `contra’ synonymously.                
            They play an essential role in the emergence of mental disorders and will be discussed in more detail in the following chapters.

Spheres of the Absolute

The first-rate, actual Absolute (A¹) has the following parts:

The first-rate, actual Absolute (A¹) left,
has the following parts:
  A-center = the core-Absolute is only and exclusively-absolute.
  A-external = the external Absolute is relative and also-absolute.
In the first-rate reality, the Relative is co-absolutized by the Absolute, so that this Relative is here `also- absolute.

Preview: Areas of a second-rate strange Absolute (sA) 
resp. Pseudo-Absolute.
The core and relative spheres of the sA are divided and distorted.
More details can be found in this section of ‘Metapsychiatry‘.  

In the first-rate reality, the Relative is co-absolutized by the Absolute, so that this Relative is here `also- absolute´.

Representatives, Places of Occurrences

• Representatives of the 3 actual Absolutes

– Representatives of +A¹: God1/ love 27    [Hint: I partly write Godto indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.] and its choice.
– Representatives of −A¹: `the absolute evil’ and its choice.
– Representatives of the `absolute attitude´: the absolute sphere of person (see later).

[Also-absolute are: spirit, life, absolute qualities, subjects, everything, transcendence, people, the individual – in contrast to these Relatives: matter, function, relative qualities, objects, something, immanence, things, others. I will discuss their inversions later.]

• Representatives of strange Pseudo-Absolutes (sA)
   +sA: general or individual +sA parts e.g.
                        ideal of itself = ‘Ideal-I’ or ‘Self-Ideal’,
                        ideal of others (e.g. ideal of other people, of the world as idol, ideologies, etc.)
   ‒sA: general or individual ‒sA-parts with absolutely negative connotations (e.g. taboos etc.)
   0 : negated or repressed first-rate matters.

Overview and Preview of Important Terms and Abbreviations

= the Absolute                                                                     
 = strange Absolute = Pseudo-Absolute
sS = strange Self (= the personal sA)
= strange All (in an all-or-nothing relations)
0 = Nothingness
It = complex of strange All and 0 (`dyad’) or of pro and contra and 0 part (`triad’) in the core.
C = general abbreviation for complexes that dominate personal and other areas of reality. 28The complexes range from the simplest complexes, sA, sS, “, and 0, to the Its that consist of them. Further to complexes consisting of two or more Its, or as `hyper-complexes’ of very many Its..
(See also the section on complex formation in the part `Metapsychiatry’.)

These terms are explained in detail in the section ‘Metapsychiatry”.
Pro-sA and +sA, on the one hand, and contra-sA and -sA, on the other hand, are used interchangeably throughout this book..

The Relative

The Meaning of the Relative 29Unless otherwise stated, this is about the first-rate Relative.

The Relative is created by the Absolute. The Relative is subordinate to the Absolute. It has a relative meaning in relation to the Absolute. Unlike the Absolute, which has only one meaning and is supreme, the Relative has a great variety of meanings. Strictly speaking, the Relative could only be described in comparative terms. It could be compared to the interpretation of dreams or symptoms, which are also not limited to a single specific meaning. So basically you cannot think of the Relative as an independent thing. When we use the term “the Relative,” we should really say “the Relative of the Absolute. (Or something Relative of a Relative of an Absolute). So the Relative is not as independent as the term might lead you to expect. The word “relative” primarily describes a relationship. The Relative cannot exist without the Absolute, just as there is no part without the whole – just as no disease exists in isolation from the affected person – or, as it is said, it would have a relatively independent existence. The Relative can be proved, the Absolute can only be believed. 30More precisely, the Relative is ultimately only relatively good to prove, while the Absolute is more credible than a relative.  But the (actual) Absolute is more credible than a Relative one.

The Relative is best defined by the Absolute.
The first-rate relative sphere forms a continuum with its components but our language divides this continuum into separate entities. This also applies to the classification of diseases, which are also something Relative.
Unlike the Absolute, the Relatives can only be in a relative opposition. That is, two Relatives can only be set in relative opposition to each other. Therefore, there is no dualism or absolute opposition of body and soul, health and illness, subject and object etc., in the first-rate reality.
Absolute opposition and separation exist only between the positive and negative Absolute +A and ‒A. (More on this later).
The Relatives as strange Pseudo-Absolutes (sA) however, can be of absolute relevance to the individual. Then they are not only ambiguous, but often seem contradictory and paradoxical.   

The qualities of Relatives are not absolutely distinct, which means that something that normally has a negative meaning, can appear positive (and vice versa) – i.e. every Relative has one relatively positive (+) and one relatively negative (‒) side, or several of these sides. There is no Relative that is only positive or negative. Then it would not be relative but absolute. The sayings: “Everything (Relative) has two sides” and “Everything has its advantages and disadvantages” are well known. This fact is also important when it comes to mental disorders, which are also Relatives. It relativizes the statement that sickness and its causes are only negative and health and its causes are only positive. Only God¹, more or less also the first-rate Self, spirit, and life can be seen as actual Absolutes. The terms “person”, “personality” and “self” can best be used to show the absolute part of a person. Terms such as sense, truth, justice, dignity, freedom, and love are indicators of the actual Absolute.
Terms such as matter, body, thing, object, the worldly or functions are important representations of the Relative. 31Hint: I partly write Godto indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.  

7 Synonyms of the Relative (2nd stage of differentiation)

Just as I named 7 synonyms of the Absolute in the 2nd stage of differentiation, I also name 7 synonyms of the first-rate Relative:
The Relative (compared to the Absolute) is:

  1. relative 32The term `relative´ is the keyword. 
  2. different
  3. possible
  4. partial
  5. conditional
  6. secondary
  7. dependent 33As I said, relative properties should always be presented in comparative form, but for the sake of simplicity I will present them in their basic form in this study. More on this later.

Preview: For comparison, the most important characteristics of second-rate Relatives (R²).
(See also in the Summary table  columns I and L, lines 1-7, the characteristics of the sA ibid. column K lines 1-7).
For their identification I mostly use the left, first mentioned forms here.

             1. inadequate/ hyperabsolutized/ unrelated
                2. strange/ hyperidentical/ without identity
                3. unreal/ hyperreal/ essenceless
                4. split/ one-sided/ detached
                5. accidental / determined/ undetermined
                6. second-rate/ extreme/ unconnected
                7. too heteronomous/ pseudoautonomous/ detached.
       More on that later.

Assignment of certain absolute and relative aspects.34(More about ‘The Absolute and Relative in comparison’ – in the unabridged German version.)

Symbols which Show the Relations between A and R 

These pictures show the priority of A compared to R (from left to right):
The Absolute is the center/ the superordinate/ the basis/ the primary/ and the comprehensive.
According to it, the Relative is the peripheral/ the subordinate/ the superstructure/ the secondary and the limited.
The Nothingness is outside of AR.

The Nothingness (0)

I believe that the actual nothingness is a result of the actual negative Absolute.
The strange nothingness may be seen as a result of a strange Pseudo-Absolute (sA) and as a category of second-rate realities. E.g. Something became worthless, meaningless, nothing, null, void, negated, etc. See also the `Genesis of the nothingness´.

General Units/ Systems

Terms/ Definitions

.I distinguish the following pr systems/units which will be described in more detail later:
I denote the more absolute before the Relative.

1. Everything, All – Something
2. God – World
3. People – Things
4. I / Others
5. Spirit – Body, Mind.

Shortcut: system, unit = Σ
(The terms unit and system are used synonymously here for the sake of simplicity.)

World, Person and I 

“That I recognize what the world holds together in the innermost.” Goethe, Faust.

The world, the person and the I (= WPI) are made of one first-rate reality and a lot of second-rate realities. Whether our world is “the best of all possible worlds”, as Leibniz said, or whether one is struck by “the sorrow of life”, as Schopenhauer (and Buddha) said, or whether the person is considered good or bad – philosophers have very different opinions about this. I think everything from -A to +A is represented, although most of them are probably somewhere in between. This means that people live in a world between heaven and hell – sometimes they belong more to one side than the other. This is a world that will always be in need of redemption, just as we are. A common feature of all realities/systems (Σ) is that they are determined by different Absolutes (A or sA)..

 For more details on the following topics see the unabridged German version:                   
                   Basic relations in pr realities / systems.
                   Relations between spirit, psyche and matter.
                   Interplay of general language forms and differentiations.           
                   Relations between various pr units.
                   Human between +A / ‒A and R.


In the chapter ‘Metapsychology’, you will find the introduction of the classification of any kind of psychically, (psychologically)relevant topics.
The classification has a vertical and a horizontal axis.
The vertical axis indicates fundamental meanings (key concepts: absolute, relative and nothing).
The differentiations form the horizontal axis. As said, they are derived from basic forms of language.

All psychically relevant realities have specific dimensions and differentiations, where the absolute dimension determines the specific reality. It is divided into first-rate and second-rate strange dimensions, and thus into first-rate and second-rate realities.
The first-rate and second-rate realities have very different characteristics. The second-rate strange realities (especially the second-rate psychic realities) are the most important basis for the development of psychic disorders.          

You can say:

  1. In general (according to the “first level of classification”): Metapsychology, or what is psychically, (psychologically) relevant, has to do with existential, fundamental meanings, whose main representatives are the Absolute, the Relative and the Nothing, and with what nouns, verbs and adjectives represent – i.e. with “structures” (forms), “movements” and “qualities”. And psychically relevant connections have something to do with what subjects, objects, and predicates represent (1st level of classification).
  2. The `2nd classification stage´ corresponds to the first vertical column of the Summary table. In keywords: Metapsychology or the psychically relevant (as well as the psyche) has to do with: actual or strange absolute, relative or nothing, with sense, identity, truth, unity (wholeness), unconditionality (security), causes, independence (a1-a7); further with: Everything and nothing, God and the world, me and other people, mind, body, sex, conditions, desires, possessions, necessities, obligations, rights, new and old, actions, information, representations, meanings, mistakes, past, present and future, with qualities and with all `movements’, i.e., actions and processes associated with them – all that can have actual or strange absolute, relative or no meaning.
  3. All pr-terms of the summary table could be assigned to the `3. classification stage’.
  4. Infinitely differentiated, one might say: Metapsychology and the psyche are ultimately concerned with every word and every sentence.

I have found it most useful to use ordinary grammar as a basis for analogies to distinguish psychically relevant things. In this way, the classification used appears, like language itself, as an open but ordered system that can be expanded or modified as needed. It seems to me that this categorization offers considerably more possibilities than the usual classifications in psychology and psychiatry to represent something psychical Relevant in general or the psyche in particular.
Attention to the existential basic meanings of the psychical Relevant (“dimensions”) and the representation of their confusions is again useful for understanding the genesis of mental illness. (⭢ Metapsychiatry)

Summary of the Dimensions and Differentiations and their Classification

Individual Metapsychological Topics

Here I will focus on the topics of the `2nd classification stage’. In particular, I will try to find answers to the following questions
What are the most important psychically relevant (pr) topics? What is reality, truth, freedom, the Self, the I, etc.?
Is there only one reality, only one truth, only one freedom, only one Self, etc.? Or are there many of them: many realities, many truths, many freedoms, many egos and Selves? And if so, what are they?

General Hypotheses

In this chapter, I distinguish between absolute and relative forms, and between first-rate (= actual) and second-rate (= strange) forms, for each specific psychically, (psychologically) relevant topic.

  • The first-rate forms consist of only one +Absolute (+A), which includes many relative forms.
  • The second-rate forms consist of many strange Absolutes and strange Relatives. Here, the strange absolute forms are separated into two opposites and a zero part.
    (Why this is so, I will explain later)

So I distinguish between

  • a first-rate Absolute (+A), which forms a manifold unity with its Relatives (R¹): a first-rate reality/world (W¹) and
  • many second-rate, strange Pseudo-absolutes (sA) with many second-rate, strange Relatives (R²), which create diverse second-rate realities/worlds (W²).

(These statements are essentially statements of faith, although much of the technical literature gives the impression that they are not. Phrases such as “There is no absolute truth! What these authors should be saying is, “I believe there is no absolute truth!)

Regarding the Dimensions

In the following section, the 7 aspects of the dimensions are ordered sequentially (`2nd level of dimensions). The organization is the same as in the Summary table.

What applies to first-rate Absolute and the second-rate Pseudo-Absolutes (sA), also applies to first-rate or second-rate identity (a2), first-rate or second-rate actuality, truth (a3), first-rate or second-rate unity (a4), first-rate or second-rate unconditionality/ safety (a5), first-rate or second-rate causes (a6) and first-rate or second-rate autonomy and freedom (a7). For each first-rate aspect, I mention a `Meta’-term. So I want to make it clear that this first-rate meta-stage is the highest, includes everything Relative and is stronger than any sA, which have only relative importance from this perspective.

Solutions (a1)

The Absolute and the Relative were also discussed above in chapter `Dimensions‘ (1st stage).
Regarding the (main?) function of the Absolute (from Latin absolutum, “the solved”) one can say:
• There is one first-rate absolute solution (= salvation and redemption) and many first-rate relative solutions.
• In contrast, there are many second-rate solutions: second-rate (pseudo-) absolute, when a relative solution has been absolutized, or second-rate relative, when other solutions have been derived from a pseudo-absolute solution.  (For details, see section `Solutions´)

Identity, Self (a2)

Identity can be understood as the ‘inner unity of a person’ or as ‘essential similarity’.
I distinguish between first-rate, actual identity and second-rate, alien identities:

• The first-rate, actual identity includes all possible relative identities, whether positive or negative. It is based on a positive Absolute.
I believe that the identities we give ourselves, such as “a good person,” our profession, or our status, are not absolute identities, but rather relative/attributive identities. I believe that the highest identity is the identity that God¹/Love gives us (theomorphism), which continues even when we are not comfortable with our own idea of our identity. It represents itself personally as the positive Self. It also integrates our second-rate, strange identities. This means that I can always feel identical to myself, even when I’m strange to myself or can’t see who I really think I am. Even from this perspective, totally alienated, I receive a fundamental, indestructible identity. This identity can also be called “meta-identity” because it stands above and integrates all other relative or strange identities. 35Man has absolute identity only in his absolute basic attitude. 
In contrast, there are a large number of second-rate (pseudo) absolute identities. They consist of a hyper-identical and an opposite, strange and a null part. They are fixed on certain identities and exclude others, mostly negative ones. In this case, the person feels either a strange or even unacceptable identity, a hyper-identity, or no identity at all.
Example: If my status as a psychotherapist constitutes my absolute identity, then I would feel that my entire identity would be lost if I lost that status. Relativistic over-identifications can also lead to a strange or non-existent identity, although many authors see it differently, e.g., “The structure of complete identity is a reflection of the whole social Interaktionismus 
Kernberg’s and others’ definitions of the self go in the same direction.
It seems good to define the attributes mentioned above (nationality, profession…) as something that is part of the real Self. Stronger, however, is the primary core identity that is found deep within a person and that makes me be me. But whenever relative identities become absolute, the person is confronted with a large number of different, sometimes paradoxical identities that can no longer be integrated. Isn’t this one of the main problems of our clients, that the free and unshakable identity is limited and bound to strict requirements, so that we can only feel comfortable and identical with ourselves if these internalized requirements affirm it? Isn’t it obvious how vulnerable, questionable, delicate and potentially pathogenic such an image of man is? But we need an indestructible identity.
(See also `Disorder of the person’s identity´ and `a2 Identity and otherness´).

Truth (a3)

“The higher a truth is, the higher you have to look to understand it.”  (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)

I am convinced, that there are several “truths”.
I distinguish between first-rate, actual truth and “second-rate, strange truths”.
The first-rate, actual truth includes all relative truths. It is based on a positive Absolute.
The first-rate, actual truth is an entity with a variety of relative sections of truth. I also count logic and rightness as part of this. More precisely: Every relatively true statement is associated with a relatively opposite statement that is also relatively true. Both “truths” are neither absolutely true nor absolutely false. 

Sometimes, a relative untruth can be truer than a relative truth. E.g.: Although the statement is generally right that one should not hurt other people, the opposite may be more right in individual cases (e.g., surgery).a relative untruth can be truer than a relative truth. E.g.: Although the statement is generally true that one should not hurt other people, in some cases the opposite may be more true, e.g. surgery. Therefore, the often endless discussions about who is right are mostly pointless, because usually neither side is absolutely wrong.

These relative truths remain true only if they are embedded in the first-rate actual truth. The first-rate truth includes not only objective truths but also subjective truths. It could be called ‘meta-truth’.
Also, objectivity will be most truthful if it does not try to be objective alone, but includes subjectivity. And subjectivity will be the strongest and truest when it includes objectivity.
The first-rate truth is stronger than the second-rate, strange truths, and can compensate for them.

In the case of “second-rate, strange truths,” a relative truth becomes an absolute truth, and a relative opposite becomes an absolute opposite. Then there is only absolutely true or absolutely untrue, right or wrong, black or white, and so on.
What someone has made absolute will also determine what he believes to be true and right. So a capitalist will believe that what increases his capital is true and right, or a moralist will believe that what serves morality is true and right, etc. Also: When a (relative) truth is exaggerated, a relative untruth is also created.
Similar to realities, the various truths also depend on the Absolute. They are subordinate to an Absolute, and that Absolute determines whether they are primary or secondary. These statements go hand in hand with the concepts of modern logic. For example: “The truth or falsity of a system can only be determined from outside the system.” = Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. 37Logik Wörterbuch p. 189

Truth and Rightness

Truth is stronger than rightness because the latter is often “short lived”. (P. Bamm)

Here are just a few key words: We must distinguish between truth and “rightness. Truth is an important topic in philosophy, rightness/correctness in the sciences. Truth can be believed, rightness can be proven. Truth primarily captures the essence, rightness the thing in itself. Similarly, truth is a semantic category, rightness is a syntactic category.
Truth is believable, rightness is provable, but the believable is stronger than the provable. “Human dignity is inviolable” and similar statements are truths to me. But you cannot prove that they are true.
Although truth is often defined as the correspondence between reality and intellect (“Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus”), I see no correspondence because reality is only partially logically comprehensible. Rightness should be embedded in truth, and the search for truth should not be independent of the search for what is right. Rightness appears to me as a kind of relative truth.

Unity (a4)

I distinguish between first-rate and second-rate units, which I will only briefly explain here and in more detail later in Metapsychiatry. I believe, the right order can be disturbed by inversions (↔), which change the positions of the Absolutes and the Relatives. Then a Relative becomes more absolute and the more Absolute becomes relative or nothing. The same is true of units. Then inverted, second-rate, strange “units” (right) emerge next to first-rate, actual units (left).

Units¹ in good orderPreview: The inversion of the units
1. Everything, All – Something
2. God – World
3. People – Things
4. I / Others
5. Spirit – Body, Mind.
1. Everything, All ↔- Something
2. God ↔ World
3. People ↔- Things
4. I ↔ Others
5. Spirit ↔ Body, Mind.

The first-rate, actual unity¹ may be absolute or relative.
There is only one first-rate unity, in which all relative units are embedded.
Personally, I believe that the unity of a person with God1 is an absolute unity. This unity contains all the (positive and negative) Relatives, also splittings and dissociations. From that standpoint, nothing can separate us from God1 and there cannot be any kind of dissociation within us because we are always protected and secure in that unity. Therefore, I believe that this is the strongest force against any psycho-pathological division and dissociation because every society and every individual tends to split off the negative, and our human power is often not strong enough to overcome these splittings.
This first-rate, actual unity is a kind of `meta-unit´
In contrast, there are many second-rate, strange “units” that are determined by strange Pseudo-Absolutes (resp. ‘It’). These It and their units are self-contradictory (→ The It as a nine-sided triad), have a contradictory dynamic (see, e.g. `Disorder of the person’s identity´) and are found in all mental illnesses (e.g., schizophrenia).

Safety (a5)

I distinguish between first-rate, actual safety and second-rate, strange safeties.
• The first-rate, actual safety may be absolute or relative. There is only one first-rate absolute +A based safety with a large number of first-rate, relative forms of safety. One can speak of a `meta-safety´ because it is higher than all relative safeties or uncertainties and compensates these. That means, that in spite of uncertainties, a person might still feel safe at a “higher level”.
• In contrast, there are many second-rate, pseudo-absolute, and strange relative safeties.
The pseudo-absolute safeties have an “over-safe” variant, an “under-safe” variant, and a zero variant.
Example: Something may cause a person to feel absolutely certain: for example, to be absolutely certain of achieving a certain goal. However, if this certainty is questioned, it can become a great uncertainty. Something in between is missing. There is also no awareness of other certainties (zero variant).

Causes and Results (a6)

I distinguish between:
a) first-rate, actual causes, which can be first-rate and absolute (“primary cause”), or hereafter relative (“first-rate relative causes” from R¹).
b) second-rate, strange causes (“strange causes”), which arise first from strange Pseudo-Absolutes (sA), or hereafter from their Relatives (R²).
To be more exact:

• To a)
One can think of a primary, actual cause with a large number of relative causes from R¹.
Personally, I see the first “primary cause” in God138I partly write Godto indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.
A second “primary cause” corresponds to a person’s basic attitude, which can be the basis for many other causes. For our topic it is important that people see themselves not only as victims of a complex interplay of conditions and requirements, but also as a person who can primarily and independently bring something new and positive into a system.
A second, “primary cause”, corresponds to the basic attitude of a person, which can be the foundation of multiple other causes. For our topic, it is important, that people do not only see themselves as victims of a complex interplay of conditions and requirements but also as a person who can primarily and independently bring new positive to a system.
• To b)
Second-rate, strange causes arise when relative causes are given pseudo-absolute importance. These are causes for certain behaviors, perceptions, etc., which often do not correspond to the actual basic attitude of a person. They are products of It/sA or their systems. They have two opposite parts and a zero part. This means that the second-rate causes, such as a heteronomous desire, are divided into a pro-part (“I want this”), its opposite (“I want the opposite”), and a zero-part (“I want nothing”).
The It/sA are typical second-rate causes. 39Remined: sA = strange Absolute, It = sA, Contra-sA and 0sA as three-part “unit”. Hint: I partly write Godto indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology. They create second-rate worlds/realities, second-rate personal and individual changes (WPI²). Those may become further second-rate causes, especially of illness. The It/sA as second-rate causes have very special characteristics and effects, which will be listed in detail later on (s. Emergence of strange, second-rate Realities). It is worth noting that their effects are mainly indirect and ambivalent. They also extend far beyond the original sphere of action. (s. Spreading and compression). They are also the cause for vicious cycles. 40Since vicious cycles occur in the relative range, they are best resolved from an + absolute range. (See later)

Six Hypotheses on Cause of Changes of the Psychic Relevant (pR)

1st hypothesis: The primary causes of a pr occurrence come from the absolute sphere of a subject. That “subject” can be a person or +A or ‒A (see later). In other words: The above issues can bring something entirely new to pR systems. The person is not the only cause of change.  So, as we said, the person is not just a product of some relationships, but can add something new to his or her own healing process.

2nd hypothesis: In a pr system, any pr cause can have any relative effect. This also means vice versa: Any relative result – negative or positive – (such as health or illness) can come from any kind of cause. But with very different probabilities! (For exceptions, see below.) This also means that any psychic symptom of illness can have a large number of different causes, even if the probabilities are very different. E. Bleuler said something similar: “It took a very long time to realize that a psychopathological disorder can be caused by very different noxas, and that one noxa can lead to different disorders.” 41Bleuler E. Lehrbuch der Psychiatrie. Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1983, p. 132. This also means that there is no absolutely clear interpretation of symptoms, dreams, and other kinds of pr phenomena, but that interpretations can only have high or low validity. (In this context, it is good to mention that opposing interpretations of second-order realities are more likely than one might think).
In terms of therapy, this means that there is a wide variety of therapeutic possibilities, even if the quality is very different.

3rd hypothesis: This is an exclusion of the 2nd hypothesis: An absolutely positive cause has no absolutely negative effect, and vice versa: An absolutely negative cause does not have an absolutely positive effect. Expressed in religious terms: There is nothing absolutely negative that comes from God1, but sometimes something relatively negative (something that feels negative, such as grief and illness). Also, there is nothing absolutely positive that can come from -A, but something relatively positive. God1 focuses on +A, while the goal of -A is the absolute negative.

4th hypothesis: Results of causes can become causes of other results. These can occur as circular or systemic causes, or as network or bundle of causes.

5th hypothesis: First-rate primary causes originate in the spiritual realm.
Although the primacy of spiritual (or ideational) causation cannot be proven, nor can the primacy of material causation, at present there is a danger of one-sidedly searching for causes of mental illness in the material-somatic sphere and accordingly one-sidedly treating them (KW psychotropic drugs).
[Since it is known that trauma can cause hereditary changes in the brain and genes, some ideas about heredity must also be qualified.] 42]

6th hypothesis: If the principles (axioms, a priori) are wrong, then so are their derivatives.
Further see `Causes of mental disorders´.

Autonomy and Freedom (a7)

As human beings, we are completely independent only when it comes to our absolute ability to choose. Otherwise, we are more or less dependent. I believe that only God1 is absolutely free in all matters. We are free only in relation to the Absolute. 43What I denote the `choice of the Absolute´ or `primary virtues´.
S. Kierkegaard said something similar. Therefore, I believe that the goal of absolute autonomy and independence that many people and therapists have is unrealistic and overwhelming.

I distinguish between first-rate actual freedom and second-rate “freedoms”.

  • First-rate actual freedom can be absolute or relative. There is only one first-rate, absolute freedom with many first-rate, relative forms of freedom.
  • In contrast, there are a large number of second-rate (pseudo-)absolute and relative² “freedoms”. These are divided into an overly free, “libertarian”, a strange, and an unfree part.

Freedom is first-rate when it is connected to responsibility and embedded in +A (in love, in God¹). Whenever freedom is isolated from responsibility and love, and yet made absolute, it becomes a second-rate, strange absolute.
There is also first-rate, quasi-heavenly freedom when I can say that I am free even though I am not. In other words: I also have the freedom to be dependent and not free.
First-rate freedom is stronger than second-rate freedom/unfreedom.
An important sign of second-rate freedoms is the restriction of choice.

Regarding the Differentiations

The 4 main Differentiations

Forms of Being

In this section I want to contrast forms of being that are Relatives (matter, etc.) with those that are close to the more absolute (spirit, soul, etc.).
I assume that in first-rate reality there are fluid transitions between these entities without the respective entities losing their own characteristics. Limitations and divisions only occur in second-rate realities due to the strange Pseudo-absolutes (sA). That’s why I believe that human beings are only one in their first-rate reality. But since we also live in and exist as a large number of second-rate realities, we are more or less torn, just like our environment.
This also means that there are usually splits, contrasts, dissociations (and other sA results) between mind and body or within the psyche or spirit. In other words: In first-rate reality, there is a great variety of forms of being that together form a single entity. In second-rate realities, on the other hand, there are a large number of forms of being, some of which are strange or opposite to each other. Therefore, they can become incompatible and cause disease. However, they are relativized and integrated by the +A. In other words: No matter how torn and broken a person feels, he or she can still feel oneness and secure on a higher level.

Matter and spirit: Which is dominant? I assume that the spirit is dominant in relation to the matter, i.e., the first-rate spirit determines the matter and not the other way around. As mentioned before, spirit and matter are not necessarily opposites, since matter can be a possible expression or result of spirit. Certainly, matter can also determine spirit, but only the relative sphere of spirit, not the absolute spirit. But matter can dominate a person as a strange pseudo-absolute. The real absolute mind, however, remains free and can be freely chosen.
I think of a similar hierarchy when it comes to human beings. The hierarchy would be: mind > psyche > body. In the best case, there would be no contradiction between these “parts”. Recent scientific findings cast doubt on the primacy of the spirit over matter. But it will probably depend on a person’s beliefs as to what is seen as primacy. I have little doubt that the mind has the most power (positive and negative).

The following questions are of great relevance when it comes to practical aspects and everyday life:
Is the body more important than the spirit or vice versa? Is the matter more important than the spirit or vice versa? Is the soul more important than the body or vice versa? Is the outside more important than the inside or vice versa? What are the highest priorities in the therapy and analysis of mental disorders? Are the priorities mostly found in the spiritual or in the somatic area?
Can one not be happy even though one’s body is “broken,” while it seems impossible to be happy if one has a broken soul but a perfectly healthy body?
Doesn’t the spirit ultimately determine personality, not the genes? Fanatical ideologies that killed millions of people; children of Nazis, such as the son of Nazi Borman, and others who lived in a completely different way than their parents, are important examples of the power of negative and positive mindsets that cannot be explained by genes alone. 44In this work, ‘ideology’ is the guiding concept for all inversive attitudes, including the individual ones.
But: Every ideology has positive sides too. It is all the better, the more it resembles the positive Absolute (+A) which is discussed later, and the worse and more morbid, the more opposing it is to +A.
(See also later Relations between Spirit, Psyche and Body).


Life is a characteristic of the first-rate reality/ world (W¹). In W¹, the functioning is subordinated to life.
The first-rate reality lives essentially (in the core) on its own accord.
In the second-rate realities, the functioning dominates the life of the individual. If we feel that we are only functioning and not living, then we are in a second-rate, strange reality.


The question of good and evil, or right and wrong, is one of the most central questions of our soul life. It is not without reason that we lost paradise after eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil/right and wrong. [In the following I sometimes use only the terms ‘positive’ and ‘negative’.]
What is objectively good or bad or right or wrong is ultimately a matter of faith.
In general, there should be a consensus that what is good/right benefits people and that what is evil/wrong harms people. Subjective good and right or bad and wrong is what the person feels or thinks it is. The subjective and objective judgments may or may not agree. We consider some things negative even though they are positive. (→ Resistance). 
And conversely, we may consider some things positive even though they are objectively negative and harmful to us. We can sometimes hate and love the same person (including ourselves) too much, even though the “object” has not fundamentally changed. These and many other ambivalences or paradoxes are ubiquitous.
What one considers positive or negative is relevant not only to the question of “war or peace” in general, but also as an “inner war” for the development of mental disorders. Because what is considered evil, diabolical, hostile, etc., is usually hated and fought against. One cannot identify with it, integrate it. That which is positive, beloved, divine, etc., without being it, is usually too much loved, promoted, and one over-identifies with it.
What we consider to be absolutely positive (+sA) or absolutely negative (-sA) forms the corresponding opposite: Whoever has idols (+sA) with which he identifies and is addicted, also has corresponding devils, enemies (-sA) that threaten him.
Continuing with the above classification, we could say:

  • There is the one, first-rate absolute good/positive (see +A below) and a large number of first-rate relative goods/positives. And there are many second-rate goods/positives.
  • There is one first-rate absolute evil/negative (-A) and many first-rate relative “evils”/negatives. And there are many second-rate evils and negatives.
  • The good is not necessarily associated with well-being.
  • The +A integrates everything that is relatively negative or absolute.
  • Having eaten from the tree of knowledge of good/right and bad/evil, we are now “cursed” to do the good/right and avoid the bad/evil.
  • The first qualities are unsplit and represent a multifaceted unity.

The second-rate qualities are divided into two opposing parts (all or nothing) or three (pro, contra or 0 part).
A positive pro-part (= positive hyper-quality) causes over-strong positive emotions, which are usually felt more strongly than the emotions caused by the actual +A. (→ Addiction, Seduction). And negative hyperqualities produce over-strong opposite emotions.(→ Defense).
See also: The  Emergence of the ItThe Opposites and their Dynamics).

   +Absolute (+A)

Terms that express absolutely positive are: God, love, Holy Spirit, absolute good, etc.

I distinguish the following first-rate positive Absolutes:

1. “God” – as quasi unconditional, comprehensive, positive absolute personal – as far as a “definition” is possible here at all.

Hints: – Because these are my conceptions of God and there are many other or no conceptions besides, I partly write God1 to indicate that these are my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.
–  God1 is of course more than +A. He also includes the Relative as +AR. +A without the relative would be perfectionist and absolutist. But God is a loving Absolute.

 2. The `absolute attitude of a person´ towards the +A.

(For more information, see section: The absolute attitude of the I).

Both together express a loving relationship that includes the possibility of free choice. (As is the case in human relationships.)
This +A (God1, Love and the Self) cannot be proven. If it could be proven, it wouldn’t be absolute. No proof is necessary. They are self-explanatory and self-evident. “I love you!” and not “I love you because…”. This means that love is basically absolute. It is causeless, unprovable, undeniable. It cannot be “produced,” but it is desired and given. It appears of itself. So it is basically very simple, but it does not mean that you should not try to keep love. Love is something spiritual at its core. (It is also something spiritual and physical – but primarily spiritual). Love is something divine and heavenly.
I believe that man was created for love and freedom (God1), which also means that man has the freedom to reject God1 and love.
Also the universal human rights are not provable, but obvious, like love, the Self or God1, and therefore they can only be believed.

I think the Ten Commandments, morality, good deeds, etc., are of only relative, though first-class, positive relevance compared to God, as are all the positive aspects of worldly life in general. These and other first-class +relatives, such as +realities, truths, freedoms, etc., only create a unity with the +A.
As positive relatives, one could also say that they are also love, also in God.
Important: +A integrates anything Relative and also the strange Pseudo-Absolute (sA)!
(See also `What is the positive Absolute´ `Absolute and relative will´ and `Right and wrong´.)

    ‒Absolute (‒A)

Terms such as: Mortal enemy, absolute evil, devil, demon, etc. would most likely denote the negative Absolute.

The negative Absolute (‒A), also seems to be basically an actual Absolute. However, it is “weaker” than the positive Absolute. Therefore, in comparison to God, it could be called the ‘weaker actual Absolute’.

One could make the following distinctions:
 1.     An outer- or supra-personal negative Absolute (which was formerly called the devil).
 2.    A personal negative Absolute.

About 2: I believe that the personal negative Absolute is a fundamental, unrevoked, destructive attitude of an individual in favor of the absolute evil. I also believe that it is justifiably unforgivable because such an individual does not want forgiveness. In the Bible that is called mortal sin. (→ The absolute attitude of the I). Unfortunately, many people, including theologians, consider some other negative behavior or attitude to be unforgivable, a mortal sin. So: Do not be afraid of mortal sins that are not mortal sins.

For details, see: No Fear of False Gods and Devils and Right and wrong

Notes: Although I consider the ‒A to be very important for the development of diseases, I have limited myself mainly to the pathogenic effects of sA in this work, since these are alterable and the former ‒A is not.
More topics: Is there evil at all? Dualism?
In my opinion, dualisms and monisms dominate in second-rate realities – but diversity dominates in first-rate realities. Since our world is both first-rate and second-rate, the question of which dominates can only be answered with respect to a specific situation.

Does evil exist at all?

Some people believe that there is no evil. That man is good in himself.
But: Could you put a plastic bag over a person’s head, an innocent person’s head, tie it around his neck, and enjoy watching him suffocate in front of you? Some people can! Could you grab a small child by the feet, who has done nothing to you, and smash his head against the wall until he is dead, and listen to him scream for his life, and watch his skull crack open? Some can do that!
The list of these cruelties is long, and don’t tell me that there is no primary evil in the face of these and many other brutalities on this earth. However, I am not saying that all atrocities are “absolute evil” and unforgivable. Many are the result of negative environmental influences. And I do not pretend to be able to distinguish and judge one from the other. But I have no doubt that there is a primary evil.
Nowadays, in addition to the false mortal sins, the loss of evil in people’s thinking is to be deplored, because the loss of this negative absolute causes other, relatively negative things to take its place… Moreover, and this is perhaps even more serious, if I assume the non-existence of a primary evil, I have to show understanding for all perpetrators who do evil to me, and if necessary, pity them even more than their victims. Such a view, to which there are strong tendencies today, runs the risk of helping the perpetrator more than the victim, and thus of perverting the facts. (Other key words: “all reconciliation”, false localization of evil, everything must be understood and treated, etc.).

Subjects, Objects and Subject-Object-Problem

About the Subject

I am dealing here above all with the person (P) as a subject. 45Godis for me a `first-rate personal subject’ also. Hint: As said, I write Godpartly to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.

• We can distinguish between two parts of the first-rate person (P¹) as the subject:
– P¹ as an absolute subject = the absolute
te I-self, with an absolutely free choice of the A and with absolute attributes such as uniqueness and singularity.
– P¹ as a relative subject.
A first-rate subject (P¹, God1) compensates or integrates all relative and absolutized objects without becoming identical with them.
• As a second-rate subject, P² is a surrogate subject because it is determined by an It/Pseudo-A  and acts as such. Therefore, I also call it “Sobject” because it is half subject and half object in its core.

Mentally ill people often see themselves as objects because they are determined by a strange subject (It/sA) as a sign of second-rate personality (P²). Also S. Freud, like most secular psychotherapists, saw man only in his  second-rate dimension – that is, only as a secondary subject (“sobject”), which itself is only an object of strange Pseudo-Absolutes or superordinate instances (especially Id and Superego).

About the Object

As first-rate object, the object probably cannot be first-rate absolute but only first-rate relative. As second-rate object, it will be controlled by an It/sA , or it is absolutized itself.


  • In the second-rate person P², there is either a subject-object split, a subject-object fusion, or a subject-object negation.
  • The first-rate person P¹ is a first-rate subject at its core; otherwise, in its relative sphere, it is subject and object at the same time. Here there is no subject-object division, no dualism, but only a difference between a subject and an object. (But a superiority of the subject over the object).
    This also means that as long as the subject is connected to +A, it can integrate all objects, even the negative ones, so there is no subject-object split or fusion. This is very important in psychosis therapy.

However, the subject-object problem is not only relevant to psychiatry, but is also an overarching philosophical problem. Therefore, it is briefly mentioned here because the solution of the problem has practical consequences.
“The subject-object problem is a major problem of epistemology and of Western thought in general, which consists in the question of how to determine the, in principle, bipartite relationship between subject and object. 46Meyers Großes Taschenlexikon, keyword: Subjekt-Objekt-Problem, 4. edition, 1992. In my opinion, dualisms and monisms dominate in second-rate realities – but peaceful diversity dominates in first-rate realities. Since our world is both first- and second-rate, the question of which dominates can only be answered with respect to a specific situation.

Additional questions:
Can I, as a subject, see the world completely objectively? Only partially.
Can a subject be completely objectified? Probably no more than you can make an object into an actual subject. And: Subjective things are best captured by subjective methods.
 (→ Subject-object-reversal)

Further Examples

        Faith and Knowledge

“Cogito, ergo sum“ or „Credo, ergo sum“?
“Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio.” (“Nothing is more hateful to wisdom than too much cleverness.”) Seneca  

A question of priority, similar to that of matter and mind, is that of faith and knowledge.
Faith belongs to the mind, and knowledge seeks provable facts. The boundaries between faith and reason are fluid.
In first-rate reality, there is no conflict between the two, but rationality and knowledge are subordinate to faith. All knowledge is based on certain fundamental ideas. Faith, on the other hand, is not ultimately based on the foundations of knowledge or logic. How absurd it would be for a person to demand: “Prove to me that you love me; that I am lovable; that I have a fundamental right to live, etc.?”
Faith moves the heart, the core, the absolute area of a person more than knowledge. Faith is stronger, but not per se better than knowledge. But: Good faith is better than good knowledge.

On the other hand, negative or destructive belief can be much more dangerous than negative knowledge:
Belief in some kind of ideology, leader, or idol has killed countless people more than anything else. Goebbels once said something like, “You don’t have to understand the leader, but you have to believe in him. That’s why inhuman ideologies are the most dangerous.
Why not use faith in a positive way if it has so much power?
It seems that, paradoxically, we avoid talking about the problems of faith because of an exaggerated faith in science. It is not only good knowledge that should help our patients, but also good faith that helps patients get better. I have found that patients have more faith in a credible therapist than in an intelligent one.
Some catchwords related to this topic:

  • Faith and knowledge are like brothers – but faith is the most powerful, the most productive, and it is said to be the most frightening.
  • You can believe anything. Faith has great variety – knowledge is limited.
  • Faith contains knowledge, but pure knowledge does not contain faith. You can say: “I believe this or that because there is proof.” But you cannot say: “I know this or that because I believe in it.”
  • Knowledge is not accessible to everyone but belief is. Example: “The mother is talking to her baby … and nobody says: ‘What are you saying? The baby doesn’t even understand anything you say!'” 47[Cit. from Y. Cohen: `Das misshandelte Kind´, Brandes und Apsel-Verlag, Frankfurt a.M., 2004, p.31]. But the mother believes that her child understands, even if it does not know what she is saying because the mother imparts the most important: love that you can only believe in.
  • Similar thoughts in `Adieu Sagesse´ (Daphne Du Maurier); `The Delusions of Certainty´ (Siri Hustvedt). See also `Trust and knowledge´.

Examples of one-sided attitudes toward belief and rationality:
Fideism: Overemphasis on belief combined with underemphasis on knowledge.
Scientism: “Overestimation of science, which makes it seem that all … problems can be solved by science.”
Positivism: Philosophy … which assumes the priority of empirical data … and regards metaphysical considerations as useless and impossible. (Quoted from Schischkoff).

Sense/ Meaning

I distinguish between first-rate, actual sense/ meaning and second-rate, strange sense/ meanings:
    • The first-rate, actual sense/ meaning can be absolute or relative. There is only one first-rate absolute sense/ meaning and many first-rate relative forms or definitions of sense/ meaning.
It is reasonable, for example, to do good things, to stay healthy and fit (and so on). However, I believe, that these are not of absolute but of relative importance and are embedded in a greater sense/ meaning, which I believe, is the unconditional love of Godfor us. That love still exists and causes happiness within us, when all the other sense/ meanings seem to be lost.
I call this first-rate sense `meta-sense´ because it is more important than all strange sense/ meanings but integrates them.
    • In contrast, there are a large number of strange, second-rate, pseudo-absolute and -relative forms and aspects of meanings. These have two opposite components and one zero component.
For example: If success has a first-rate meaning for a certain person, then it has a strange, pseudo-absolute meaning, and then it also seems reasonable to fight or oppress other people if they threaten success. Besides: The pseudo-absolute meaning turns into meaninglessness at a certain point if it is overused.

Relativity of Illness and Health (resp. Death and Life)

Just a few remarks:

  • We should free ourselves from viewing illness as something solely negative, something that has to be eliminated. Health and illness are only of relative relevance. That means, that illness also has positive aspects and health also has negative aspects. Experience shows the same: illness can have important functions for the protection, resistance, relief or identity of a person. (→ Morbid gain). Although illness is predominantly negative and health is predominantly positive, health can be predominantly negative and illness can be predominantly positive. This is why I use terms like “positive depression,” “positive psychotic phase,” “positive anxiety,” or “positive compulsion.  Examples of positive suffering/symptoms: drug withdrawal, surgery, compassion, detachment processes. Examples of ‘negative well-being’: well-being through drugs, symbiotic relationships, flow experiences.
  • There are correlations between good/bad and health/illness: The good is more correlated with health and the bad with illness.
  • There is a smooth transition between illness and health. There are probably very few people who are completely healthy or completely ill – this also applies to the psychic realm. We all have something neurotic and potentially psychotic in us.
  • If health or illness is taken too seriously (absolutized), distorted theories and therapies can result.

Against the Absolutization of Health
Our society not only has an idealized view of health – if we look at the WHO definition – but it also makes us believe that this ideal can be achieved and that everyone is entitled to it. 48Keyword: „Healthismus“.
If we as doctors make health absolute, there will be disturbances. Absolute health can make people sick or cost them a lot of money. If we force health at any cost, there is a high probability that it will disappear. This is a well-known mechanism that we see everyday. 49See also dynamic between Pro-sA and Contra-sA.
There is also the general trend that our society tends to absolutizing the entire worldly life.
(See also: “Role and Meaning of Illness and Health” in `Metapsychiatry‘.)

Individual Units / Systems

As mentioned, I distinguish between the following pr units:
[The more absolute unit is mentioned first, then the relative one].
    1. All /Nothing and something
    2. God and World
    3. People and things
    4. I and others
    5. Spirit, soul and body
    6. (Gender)
                Short: 2-4 = WPI (frequently used abbreviation)

1. All /Everything, Nothing and Something

I distinguish between first-rate and second-rate all/ everything, something and nothingness.
I use the terms `all´, ‘everything’, `reality’ and anything that is psychical relevant, as synonyms in this publication. Here about reality.
One hypothesis is: There are a large number of realities: one that is first-rate and many which are second-rate.
So there is one first-rate reality, which is manifold (W¹), and on the other hand, there are many second-rate, strange realities (W²), which are designed according to the all-or-nothing principle. That is, the second-rate all/ everything is opposed to the nothingness.

(For details, see Emergence of strange, second-rate Realities or in the unabridged version).

2. God and the World (Transcendence and immanence)

I have defined God¹ as the unconditional, positive, personal Absolute – if a definition is possible at all.
From the perspective of the first rank, it can be said that there is only one God, and with him, an immeasurable variety of life and being, for God embraces everything that is not ‒A, without having to be completely identical with it.
There are a great number of things that are thought to be God or to stand for God. They may resemble God in parts, or they may be quite different from God. But unlike the ‒A, they are not in absolute opposition to Him. (This is why I call them “strange Absolutes.)
God is best experienced directly through Jesus. He is thus directly “testable. God permeates the world with the Holy Spirit, but he is not identical with the world. Unlike other gods, he leaves us all free to choose whether we want to be with him or against him.
Therefore, the world is also ruled by other spiritual powers and not only by God. That is why God is only partially (though always) effective, even though He is omnipotent.
For further characteristics, see section `+ A ‘.

3. and 4. People, Individual (I)

The Human Being

Human existence can be specified as follows:
I distinguish between first-rate, actual human existence and second-rate, strange forms of human existence.

  • There is one first-rate, absolute form of human existence with many first-rate relative forms.
  • In contrast, there are many strange, second-rate forms of human existence.
    Since every human being by nature has the potential to be relatively positive and relatively negative, man has problems when he idealizes his relatively positive parts or taboos his relatively negative parts, because then second-rate personal forms arise, and then he lives against his original nature.
    But this, I think, affects more or less all human beings. That is, each person has one first-rate form of existence and many second-rate forms of existence (such as otherworldly forms of existence). The latter are divided into two different or opposite parts and a zero part.
    With regard to the question of the unity of body, soul, and spirit, this means that when they are of a first-class nature, they are one and the same. But in second-rate forms of human existence, man is more or less divided, unreal, and alien. The division is not only between the body, soul, and mind, but also within the body, soul, or mind itself.

Briefly more on the following questions:
Does man have free will? Can man be the creator of something completely new?
I believe so. Otherwise, any new creation, any kind of creativity, any invention would just be a combination of old components. There would be nothing truly new. There would be nothing that was completely one’s own. Wouldn’t innovation and progress then just be a better, new use of something old? Do artists only combine familiar things in new ways? Are there no real inventions?
These questions have to do with the individuality of the personality. Otherwise, everything would just be a new combination of old components (genes). Then the human person would be just a product.

Man and the Absolute

Hypothesis: Man is designed for an Absolute.
Man definitely needs an Absolute. And: Man wants to be an Absolute.
Every person has one or more Absolutes, which may be actual or alien. People often try to find their Absolute in the Relative. This creates not real, but strange Absolutes, which elevate a person, but also cause the person to break down.
The human being is also ‘AR-dimensioned’, with absolute and relative parts. However, unlike the rest of the world, every human being has it’s special and specific Absolute, here called ‘Attitude toward an Absolute‘. (Look there).

The absolute sphere of a human being has two parts:

  1. The aforementioned individual choice/attitude of the Absolute,
  2. The Absolute attributes given to the human person by God¹ such as first-rate freedom, personal integrity, the right to self-determination, absolute identity and dignity.
    The world gives a person only something Relative, and therefore only an ephemeral existence that can be manipulated and suppressed – a situation that can lead to mental disorders, in my opinion. So man is only completely absolute in his choice/attitude of the actual Absolute. This means that man as a whole is never completely absolute, nor absolutely himself, nor completely identical with himself, nor completely real or true, nor completely consistent, nor absolutely unconditional, nor completely independent, and so on. Instead, the human person is always somewhat paradoxical or nonsensical, a little strange, divided, chaotic, fixated, crazy, extreme, uncertain, pseudo-autonomous, etc.

What does man need?

It seems that man needs many things, especially love and food. But which is more important? I believe that love is more important to man than food. Man has a great desire for love. In our earthly sphere, in the form of searching for a partner; for religious people, in the form of searching for God. The experiment of Frederick II of Staufen is well known. In order to find the primordial language of the human person, he ordered women to take care of orphaned children without speaking to them. The children received everything except love. They died sadly. And even today there are many people in the same dilemma. They have everything they need in life, but they kill themselves. That’s why I believe that people need love. I believe that our souls carry the pain of the loss of paradise throughout our lives and long to return to paradise. F. Nietzsche said: “…all joy wants eternity”. 50 Thus Spoke Zarathustra: Part IV: Chapters 10–20 (p. 3) 
Modern psychology however, views the human person  primarily only as immanent. According to Rudolf, “the goal of the ego’s activities is to assert its own interests while at the same time ensuring  the necessary social relationships.”(p. 67)

Man and the World

Man differs from the impersonal world in the following ways:

  • Man has access to the sphere of the Absolute. Therefore, man has absolutely free choice – the impersonal world does not. Man has the potential for self-determination and free choice only absolutely in relation to the Absolute and relatively in relation to the Relative.
    Thus, each person has his own individual Absolute and is therefore individual (indivisible and unique).
  • The human person has the potential to create something that cannot be derived.
    These possibilities are denied by some psychological theories. Some neuroscientists try to convince us that the “I” is only a product of neural processes and has no will of its own. (So do some theologians, such as Augustine and Luther).
  • The human person is capable of self-reflection and has self-awareness.
  • The world (W) and the person (P) are interrelated. P is embedded in the world, is part of the world, and is influenced or even determined by the world – on the other hand, P also changes and determines the world.

Society, states

These pr units are of great importance when it comes to the possible causes of mental disorders.
Since the structures and characteristics of societies and states are essentially the same as those of all pr systems, they will be mentioned only briefly.
Like all pr systems, they are a mixture of one first-rate reality and many second-rate realities. Every society, state, community, or group of any kind has positive or negative influences on the individual person. The second-rate entities/systems, which are dominated by various ideologies, have a predominantly negative influence. The dynamics of societies and states are very similar to the psychodynamics of human beings.
The goodness of a society or a state is recognized above all when it is able to integrate its weak or sick members.

[Person/ Psyche and I → `Psychology´]

5. Personal Mind, Soul and Body

Especially for therapy, it seems important to me that the spirit not only has a much greater influence on the psyche than the body, but also that the mind is considered to be much freer, more variable for therapeutic intervention, and/or most important for personality change. Therapies that emphasize the material-somatic sphere (e.g., psychopharmaceuticals) are still relevant, of course. More see Relations between Spirit, Psyche and Body.

Embedding of pr Units

The graphic shows:

1) that the different pr systems/units have similar fundamental structures.
They consist of noun-representatives, verb-representatives, representatives of the adjectives and their connections (syntax), especially in form of subject- and predicate- or object-representatives (horizontal level).
All these aspect can have an absolute or relative or no meaning (vertical level).
The respective Absolute determines the respective system/unit.
2) The diagram also shows how smaller systems are embedded in larger ones.

 I A indicates that the individual, unlike the nonpersonal realms, has its own “attitude toward the Absolute” and thus cannot be automatically determined of other units.

It is important to illustrate the connection between the different units/systems to understand how certain changes, especially pathogenic influences, can be transferred from one system to another.
Using the same classification for all pr units should make it easier to understand the relationships.




In this part ‘PSYCHOLOGY‘, the general classification of METAPSYCHOLOGY is transferred to the person.
Again, I start from an analogy between language and psyche. This leads to some new interpretations of person and psyche.
Note: The `Summary table´ offers a very compressed textual and tabular overview. The links there allow the reader to quickly switch to the corresponding chapters and to keep the larger picture in mind.

In General: PERSON and PSYCHE


This chapter explores the concepts, definitions, and dimensions of person and psyche. Since the terms “psyche” and “person” are quite similar, they will be discussed together in the following paragraphs (although the term “person” is more comprehensive). Both terms will be abbreviated with the letter ‘P’ unless otherwise noted. While the term “person” includes mind, soul, and body alike, the terms “person” and “psyche” emphasize mind and soul. Therefore, the term “person” seems more appropriate to discuss the topic at hand than the term “man”.
Previously, the similarities between the “structures” of the world and those of the person were discussed in their respective psychological relevance. These are similarities between the “outer” world on the one hand and the person with his “inner” world, his psyche, on the other. Because of these similarities, a repetition of certain parts already presented in the chapter “Metapsychology” cannot be avoided.

Important Definitions

• The psychic Relevant (pR): Everything that is relevant for to psyche of a human.
• World (W): Human and environment.
• Human: Entirety of spirit, psyche and body.
• Person (P): The individual human especially with its psychic-spiritual dimension.
• Psyche: The personal psychic Relevant.
• I (I): Individual person in its entirety. (For more details see: Own definition of the I) 51The term `I´ stands mostly for the first-rate form and the term `Ego´ stands mostly for a second-rate form.
• Ego: Second-rate, strange I.
• Self: The Absolute of person.
• Personal something: The personal Relative (relative dimension of a person, e.g. body of a person).


The definitions of the term ‘person’ vary in specialist literature:
– “An individual in his unique character.” (Schischkoff)
– “Man as cognitive individual.” (Brockhaus)
– “Man as individual in his physical and mental whole with the capabilities of an Ego which is conscious of itself.” (Psychology)
– “Man as an individual spiritual being, in his specific peculiarity as the bearer of a consistent, conscious Ego.” (Wahrig)
I define the person as described above: Person (P) = “the individual in his unique character, especially from the perspective of his mind and spirit”. Or: Person = “the totality of all forms of personal being, life and qualities in their contexts, represented by analogous personal nouns, verbs and adjectives (and other language components) and their syntax in various dimensions.”


Customary Definitions:

Definitions of psyche also vary widely. Two quotes show this:

  1. “The prevailing understanding of psyche today refers to the ‘total system’ of all those (life) ‘impulses’ which the ‘vernacular’ has long called the inner life or soul life, subdividing it into the rational mind and the emotional life, as does academic psychology. This refers primarily to the totality of those ‘life expressions’ or self-reactions that are primarily or exclusively accessible to self-perception, and thus can only be observed and described from the subjective or today’s so-called ‘first-person perspective’… “. 52 6/2015.
  2. Psyche = “Entirety of subject-linked appearances of reflection of the environment caused by higher nerve functions.” 53 12/2010.
  3. It is the objective of this discussion to facilitate an extension of perspective, rather than to exchange the one one-sidedness by another. Not: brain on the one hand and spirit on the other. Not: psychology on the one hand, and philosophy or religion on the other and still to set emphases.

While the first definition is more in line with my conception, the second is more in line with the neurobiological tendencies of today’s academic psychology. The main problem, however, is that the human psyche is inadequately captured by purely scientific methods. A number of authors, including myself, have attempted to overcome this shortcoming, including Frank A. Gerbode: In this sense, `metapsychology´ restores the original meaning of `psychology´ as “the study of the psyche or mind, and the applications of metapsychology reflect the perennial common goal of therapies, religions, and traditional philosophies, whether that goal is called the attainment of sanity, enlightenment, happiness, wisdom, or salvation.” 54Frank A. Gerbode in

The purpose of this discussion is to facilitate a broadening of perspective, not to replace one one-sidedness with another. Not brain on one side and spirit on the other. Not psychology on one side and philosophy or religion on the other, and so on.

New Definition of the Psyche

I define psyche as the personal psychic Relevant. 55In this publication, the terms ‘psyche’ and ‘soul’ are used synonymously.
[Hint: I partly write God¹ to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
And I define psychology as “the study of the personal psychic Relevant.”
Psyche is the sphere of a person that contains, represents and reflects everything that is relevant to it.
This includes everything that affects the person’s inner self, as well as that which is meaningful to the person outside of him/herself.
This also means

1) In terms of place, the psyche is not confined to a person. While it has a core (the Self) that is individual and unique, it is also connected to the environment and transcends the physical boundaries of the person. Thus, each person’s psyche is embedded in a metapsychological sphere.
2) The psyche cannot be limited to certain subjects or aspects. It can include, contain, process, and reflect all that is relevant to a person. This fact is important because there has always been a tendency to limit the psyche to certain aspects. As I said, there is currently a tendency to limit the psyche to what can be objectified and scientifically proven.
3) Something can be of absolute, relative or no importance to the human psyche. What is most important to a psyche is what is of absolute importance.
4) Since man is capable of self-reflection, he simultaneously occupies the role of both subject and object. Here there is a danger of subject-object division as well as subject-object fusion or dissolution of the two. (More details in `Subject-Object-Problem´ and in `Subject-object-reversal´).

Similar to all other psychic Relevant (pR), the psyche has distinct dimensions and differentiations.
(Compare also with the explanations in The General Psychic Relevant)

The dimensions of the psyche are the following: absolute, relative (and zero) dimensions, or their 7 synonyms.
In this study, the differentiation of that which is psychically relevant, as well as the differentiation of the psyche, are derived from the forms of language presented above, leading us to define four main differentiation aspects of the psyche (`1st classification stage’):

 I. Psychic  forms/structures – derived from personal substantives.
 II. Psychic dynamics / “movements” – derived from personal verbs (and predicates).
 III. Psychic qualities – derived from personal adjectives.
 IV. Psychic connections, subjects, objects, predicates – derived from the personal syntax.

The term “personal” means that the form, dynamics or quality of a matter are related to a particular person.
Examples of “personal verbs” are words such as: to identify, commit, allow, believe, feel etc.

That is to say: Psyche has something to do with what person-relevant nouns, verbs, adjectives express in absolute, relative, or empty meanings.
And psyche has something to do with what person-relevant subjects and predicates/objects represent.

A further differentiation is the `2nd classification stage´. 56As stated in the Summary table.
This 2nd classification stage´ corresponds to the second vertical column of the Summary table
A summary with relevant keywords might be: The psyche includes: personal meaning, identity, truth, union (wholeness), the unconditional (security), causes and triggers, freedom (a 1-a7). Furthermore: personal everything and nothing, God and the world, other people and I, mind and body, gender, conditions, desires, possessions, possibilities, necessities, obligations, rights, new and old, actions, information, representations, meanings, past, present, future, wrong and right (individual aspects) and all related personal `movements’, i.e. actions and processes – which are dominated by the dimensions, i.e. with their absolute, relative or negligible role.

To a `3rd classification stage´ one could assign all terms found in the`Summary table´. 

A broad definition of the concept might be as follows: A person’s psyche includes everything that affects the person. Anything can affect a person, but a person is most affected by that which is of absolute importance to him or her. What concerns the person finds its most important and nuanced expression in language (individual and general).
Therefore, everything that people talk about is an expression of their psyche. In this respect, what is expressed in language correlates with what concerns the psyche, and the patterns of the language used correlate with the patterns of the psyche.

I would like to reiterate that I do not consider language to be the only way a person can express themselves.
I consider it to be the most important and nuanced form of expression.

    Advantage of this definition:

One can well classify psyche by using analogous language forms (differentiations) and their meanings by different dimensions. Thus we get different personal resp. psychically relevant units or subunits. The term ‘psyche´ is not limited to the realm of the mind and soul but includes the body, which is also ‘inspired’.
In this way, the body belongs to the psyche. In my opinion, this definition expresses much more clearly that these are not two separate entities (body, psyche) but rather, this is a union with different accentuation.
Moreover, as I said, the definition of psyche is even broader, since it includes not only the person himself but also everything outside the person that is of some significance to him.

Overview of the Classification of Person and Psyche

In this study, the terms “person” and “psyche” are discussed in the same paragraphs and are used synonymously because of their general congruence.
Sometimes, for the sake of simplicity, only one of the two terms is explicitly mentioned. The terms first-rate/actual or second-rate/strange are used synonymously. Often I use only one term.
I apologize to the reader for presenting this extensive problem in such a concise manner.
This classification is meant to encompass all aspects of the person and the psyche.
(See Summary table. Here is only the second classification stage).

The differentiation aspects of the person and the psyche are to be represented in such a way that they include all possibilities of their use, e.g. in everyday language.
The dimensions, in turn, indicate whether these aspects have absolute, relative or no meaning. They provide information about the position of the individual aspect in the order of priority, i.e. whether its form of appearance is a matter of first-rate or second-rate (strange), personal/ psychic forms. This distinction is important because the second-rate, strange forms play an essential role in the emergence of mental disorders. In other words, that which is second-rate, strange, personal/psychic, is more prone to developing a disease, especially when these alien parts dominate.
Dimensional orientation also plays a role in the personal dynamics in the part ‘Metapsychiatry‘.

Thus, similar to The General Psychic Relevant also the ‘classification’ of person and psyche is undertaken according to the following categories:
    – their spheres (absolute, relative or 0-range)
    – their 7 synonyms
    – their order of priority (first / second-rate)
    – their orientation pro +/ contra ‒).
Differentiation by means of analog patterns of speech which are relevant to P.
Units that may be relevant to P.

Note. That which is personal and Absolute will be termed the ‘Self’. In the first-rate personal sphere, the relative sphere of P is at the same time an also-self-sphere because the relative personal is enclosed by the Self. This is not the case with the second-rate, strange personal to be discussed later in the `Metapsychiatry‘ section.
(For more information, please ether see the table on the right and in the following]

In contrast to the classification of the “generally psychic Relevant”, here the person and the psyche are completely central. As a result, a number of new terms have emerged, or terms that need to be defined more precisely. These are, in particular, the terms ‘Self’, ‘I’, and ‘It’. In order to remain rather close to reality in my study, I have attributed to these terms the meaning they are given in everyday language. However, further clarification of these terms is necessary, since they are also terms which are central in psychoanalysis. There is a considerable degree of congruence with the concepts discussed in psychoanalysis, however, there are also some differences..

(“Grammar of the Psyche” – Analogy of Language and Psyche)

      Motto: “We should question the mother in her home, the children on the street and the common man
       at the market, and then watch their mouths to see how they talk …” (Martin Luther)
       – to find out what concerns them.

The structure of the person and the psyche will be described in more detail in the following paragraphs. 571. In the place of the terms: `person’ or `psyche’, the notion: `I’ could be inserted.
 2. Person and psyche are used synonymously here.

I derive the psyche (= the personal psychic Relevant) in the same the way as I derived The General Psychic Relevant (see part `Metapsychology’) because the structure of psyche resp. person resembles the structure of the world  as that of the world in its perception by man. 
But there are crucial differences: Man has absolute freedom of choice, the ability to create and to reflect upon himself.
Similar to the dimensions of the ‘world’ or the psychic Relevant, I distinguish with regard to the person between the Absolute, the Relative, and the Nothing. That which is the personal Absolute will be referred to as the ‘Self’, that which is the personal Relative will be referred to as the ‘personal Something’, and the individual person will be referred to as the ‘I’.
(As mentioned above: `Ego’ is the second-rate I; we will return to this matter later.)

Thus, what concerns the psyche/person can also be divided, using linguistic analogies, into the four main areas and the 23 individual aspects with the corresponding dimensions.

Derivation of the four main aspects of person in their absolute and relative dimensions
(1st classification level):

Analogous to this, psyche is, classified according to the IV main aspects, the personal psychological Relevant with its being, life, properties and their contexts in absolute, relative and 0 dimensions.(The 0 dimension is not shown here.)

Further derivation into 23 individual aspects
(→ 2nd classification level):

Illustration of the derivation of the psyche from analogies of the language with the central Absolute and peripheral Relatives. The main forms of language of the upper row correspond to the psychically relevant aspects of the lower row. On the right hand side you can find a list of the 23 aspects of differentiation. This illustration should also clarify that every aspect, that is not 0 (nothing), has an absolute and a relative (gray) part.

   Each form (noun) is related to certain dynamics (verbs) as action (action verb) and/or process (inchoative verb) with corresponding quality (adjective) in a corresponding context (syntax). The syntax gives us information about the functions and relations of the named personal “elements”. We can distinguish here according to function: personal subject, predicate / object and according to the direction of the “dynamic”: active, passive and reflexive. All this on the basis of different dimensions.
This categorization has the advantage that nothing personal or psychic resp. psychological Relevant is excluded, but also takes into account the fact that everything psychically relevant can become an absolute importance and then define a person..

Dimensions of Person and Psyche

Overview: Dimensions and Their Representatives

There are the following 2 (or 3) areas of dimensions of person and psyche: 58There are two dimensions if we look merely at the absolute and relative dimensions; however, there are three dimensions if the nothing is considered to be a separate dimension.
    1. personal Absolute (pA) = the Self (S).
    2. personal Relative  = personal something. 59This is in contrast to the `It’ – the absolutized Relative – which dominates a person and will be discussed later.
    (3. personal nothingness). 60However, a Nothing that is personal² seems to be exclusively assigned to the second-rate reality.
Besides, there are still the second-rate, strange Selves, which I discuss more precisely in ‘Metapsychiatry‘.

Self – the Personal Absolute

„What lives is ineradicable, remains free in its deepest form of servitude, remains one even if you split it to the base,
remains unwounded even if you pierce it to the marrow and its being flies victorious from your hands.“ (F. Hölderlin)

Questions about the Self

Does every person have a Self? Even a newborn? Is the Self an entity which is given at birth or is it developed over time? Is the I-self an unity, as Hölderlin wrote, or is it divided, for instance into “I” and “me” (G.H. Mead), or else, as Lacan wrote, into “je” and “moi”? Or is the I-self, in line with Nietzsche’s beliefs, with regard to morals, always a “Dividual” – an entity which is divided within itself? Is the Self and therefore also the ‘I’, thus never an individual, undivided, a whole?

Self-Definition in Literature

In modern psychology, the Self is generally considered to be: 61Point 1-3 adapted from articles in: Brockhaus Encyclopedia, Mannheim, 1996, keyword `self ‘
    1 – “System of conscious and unconscious knowledge of what a person believes to be.” Similarly: The Self is understood as the awareness of oneself. 
    2 – a “term to describe the coordinated control of these knowledge processes, often referred to as ‘ego’.” (S. Freud). 62A similar definition can be found in (Philosophy)
    3 – a “term to describe an inherent principle of a person’s development, whereby the Self represents the cause and the purpose of the maturing and differentiation of the personality in the sense of self-realization.”(C.G. Jung, C. Rogers et al)
    4 – The Self as “the sum of self-representations”. Similarly, O. Kernberg wrote: “The Self is an intrapsychic structure composed of multiple self-representations and corresponding emotions. Self-representations are affective-cognitive structures that reflect the self-perception of a person.”63„Borderline-Störungen und pathologischer Narzissmus.“ Suhrkamp, Frankfurt, 1978, p 358.
Similarly in  G. O. Gabbard: Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, American Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. 2005, p. 45.

    5 – Kohut speaks of “the realization through action of the (life) plan laid down in [man’s] nuclear self.” 641. A similar definition can be found in A Dictionary of Psychology (4 ed.)
2. Nuclear Self and core Self are the same in this publication.

    6 – Similarly, Tilmann Moser: “No one has an innate self that can mature by its own efforts … However, all human beings are born with the desire to develop a self …”. 65Tilmann Moser by Alice Miller: „Das Drama des begabten Kindes” in DER SPIEGEL 29/1979 of 16.07.1979, p. 141.
    7 – Psychology Dictionary: Self – “The set of qualities, behaviors, and attitudes that one believes to be characteristic of oneself” 66 In:
    8 – Rudolph: “The self can be defined as the moment when the ego, in search of an object, comes to take itself for an object.” 67Rudolf p. 63.
    9 – Modern philosophy of mind explains it this way: “If by ‘self’ one means an essential, unchanging core of the person, some modern philosophers of mind believe that there is no such thing. The idea of a self as an unchanging essential core derives from the Christian idea of an immaterial soul. Such an idea is unacceptable to modern philosophers with a materialist orientation… However, in light of empirical findings in developmental psychology, developmental biology, and neuroscience, the idea of an essential, unchanging, material core … seems reasonable … The following is the most widely accepted view: The ‘self’ is not to be understood as an unchanging, essential core; rather, the ‘self’ itself is constantly changing….. In this respect, there are striking similarities between some ideas of modern philosophy of mind and traditional beliefs of non-European cultures (such as Buddhism) …”.  68, 2016.


In general:
Most of the authors do not point out the difference of the actual Self and the strange Self, or the difference between the core-Self and the relative Self (also-Self).
Also therefore, there are a lot of different definitions.

Further to the different definitions presented above:
Ad 1 – A definition of the Self is certainly a matter of belief. But I believe that there is something universal and objective behind the concept of the (actual) Self. For example, if a person is convinced that he/she is worthless because of an illness, then that person is suffering from an inferiority complex, which in turn convinces that person that he/she is worthless. In reality, however, this person’s value is equal to that of all other individuals. This person is clearly mistaken in his beliefs. They have believed in what I have called the strange Self.
Ad 2 – The term described in this definition is categorized as ‘I’ in this study.
Ad 3 – In this definition, the (actual) Self is clearly to be seen as cause and purpose. This definition is very similar to Aristotle’s concept of entelechy, which means that there is something within us that “has its own purpose in itself.” 69(Schischkoff, KW `Entelechie´.) 
If this metaphysical reality transcends and yet lovingly embraces the individual person, then this would seem to be the best self-definition. If, however, “maturation, differentiation, and self-realization” are to be accomplished primarily by the person himself, then these are, in my view, rather functions of the “I”. This, in turn, would be describing only a part of the self (the relative Self), not the core of the actual Self, which is effective on its own.
I, for one, want my children to have a stable sense of self-worth, whether or not they have reached their full potential, stagnated in their maturation or personal development, or even regressed to an earlier state – and haven’t we all had that negative experience?
A progress-dependent Self, on the other hand, would be subject to constant fluctuations that would put the person in constant danger.
Ad 4-6 – Kernberg’s Self is also a limited, weak Self. In my opinion, it would only be the sum of many strange Selves. The actual Self, however, gives people a sense of an actual Self. This Self encompasses the entire breadth of an individual’s life and thus gives the person identity, dignity, and strength independent of all people or the individual’s own conscience.
Ad 7 and 8 – While these are clearly definitions of the whole Self, they do not distinguish between the nuclear Self and also-Self, nor do they provide any information about an innate nuclear Self.
Ad 9 ‒ To think of the Self as the unchanging core of a person’s being is largely in line with my beliefs. However, this definition only describes the nuclear Self and does not take into account that its deselection is possible. Just as we recognize that the individual has a free choice of the Absolute in general, we should also recognize that the individual has a free choice of the personal Absolute, the Self – that is, we can affirm or reject the positive absolute nuclear Self given by God¹. This can be a sometimes unconscious activity or attitude of the absolute I-self nucleus, and would also mean that since we have been given an innate nuclear Self, we also have the innate option to affirm, change, or even reject the nuclear Self. Thus, even the Self we receive from God¹ is not imposed on us, but offered to us. I see this as a sign of an unconditional love that neither leaves man to find himself nor imposes a Self on him. 70In this study, this relationship has been characterized before as a loving relationship between God¹ and people. 

I also believe that the innate, actual nuclear Self urges the individual to develop his personality, but it does not do it by itself, it requires our cooperation. Will the actual nuclear Self (given by God¹) disappear if we do not grow? I believe that it can be suppressed, but that the actual nuclear Self is constantly active as a discreet and caring companion, in such a way that we feel a certain tension and feel challenged to courageously be ourselves.
It is good to know that, especially in the Christian conception, the innate Self is inviolable, indivisible, and even stronger than the active ego of an individual.
(Further see in Self-strength and Ego-strength).

This concept of an innate Self corresponds to the beliefs on which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is based, which in its preamble explicitly attributes to every individual an innate dignity, freedom, and equality with all others. Therefore, in my opinion, there is an innate nuclear Self, just as there is an innate dignity. If it were otherwise, every person would be easily manipulated.

Is there an immortal, eternal Self resp. I-self?
Is there a constant Self or just a Self that is temporary and unstable?

Academic psychology will deny the former, since it ultimately starts from an atheistic position. However, experience shows that in addition to our unstable self-image, we feel that we are always the same person. I may feel different from day to day or in different phases of my life, but I have the impression that I am always myself, always Torsten Oettinger, and no other person. In my opinion, these two self-images exist side by side: on the one hand, there is a temporary, unstable self-image, which corresponds to the relative self, and on the other hand, we have a constant, deeper self-image/sense of self, which corresponds to the nuclear self. Reducing the person or the Self to the relative Self (or its self-representations) leads to the exclusion of the most important thing.
Contemporary psychology views the Self not as an indivisible whole, but as an entity composed of many self-representations (see Kernberg). One might also say that a person is not thought of as an individual (indivisible) but as a “dividual,” one made up of parts.

[One of the exceptions in German literature: Luise Reddemann)71: “Würde – Annäherung an einen vergessenen Wert in der Psychotherapie”. Klett-Kotta, 2008. In English-speaking countries mostly as Dignity therapy (DT) psychotherapy for palliative patients]

This view is not conducive to the treatment of mental illness, especially schizophrenic psychosis, because it is based on a concept in which the various self-representations are not held together by a larger whole, but have weak points and fault lines that leave the affected person too exposed and broken. This can also affect groups, families or societies.
In conclusion, if the client is not given a nuclear or absolute personal Self, but only a conditional, relative Self, the client will be much more unstable and vulnerable than a person who is aware of their unconditional, absolute and inviolable Self. Therefore, the self-concept of the therapist seems to be an essential factor in psychotherapy

Overview of Criticism

Prevailing opinion in psychology/psychiatry today.     Christian image of Self
The Self is:
Not innate,
Not immortal,
destructible, divisible.
It consists of many self-representations that are not connected by an indivisible whole.
These self-representations can be lost at any time.

They, and the Self in general, must be maintained through effort.

The self-image is equivalent to a relative attributive Self and does not know the characteristics of the described core Self. In my opinion, it is a weak, stressful self-image, which is not an ideal basis for psychotherapy.
The core self is:
potentially immortal,
indestructible, indivisible,
It exists by itself, functions by itself, and does not need to be constituted or maintained by the ego.
Also, the person has the free choice to support the actual Self or to establish a new one.

Since the person does not have to strive to maintain the Self, a lot of energy is saved. It is much better suited for therapeutic purposes.

Own Self-Definition

For me, the term ‘self’ generally includes any use and meaning of the word ‘self’ in colloquial language.
Self = wherever you can say ‘self’.
To limit the Self to the personal Self, which is our topic, we can define it as follows:
Wherever one can say ‘self’ in meaningful, person-related sentences, it is a personal Self.
(When I speak of the Self in the following, I mean this personal Self.)
I distinguish between an actual, first-rate actual Self (a) and those that only appear to be so – the strange Selves (b).

1. To make it easier to understand, I will usually identify the whole actual Self (core-Self and also-Self) as ‘Self’ and name other types of the Self differently. As said before: Nuclear Self and core Self are the same in this publication.
2. The strange Selves are explained in detail in the section ‘Metapsychiatry’.

The question of a person’s self is primarily a question of the identity of the human person and a question of the underlying Absolute or underlying mind.
That is, the image we have of ourselves tells us who we are.
There are many dubious answers: You are what you have! You are what you know! You are what you do! etc. And there are many questions: What is self-realization? What does it mean to trust yourself? What is this kind of self? Who am I?

The Actual, First-Rate Self

As already mentioned, the term ‘self’ is used to describe the actual, first-rate, whole Self, unless indicated otherwise. 72By Self is meant below only positive Self, unless otherwise indicated.  
Similar to the description of the character of the general Absolute (A), the character of the Self is absolute, too. It is the personal Absolute.
The Self also has 7 synonyms (2nd classification stage).
The Self is:
1- absolute, 2- identical with itself, 3- actual, 4- whole, complete, 5- unconditional, 6- first-rate, 7- independent.

Question: What is a `core-Self´ and an `also-Self´? What is absolute and what is relative?

    1st answer: The `core-Self´ is exclusively absolute, exclusively itself, exclusively actual, exclusively whole, exclusively unconditioned, exclusively first-rate and exclusively independent.
(You could also say: It is absolutely absolute, absolutely itself, absolutely actual and so on.)
The `also-Self´ is also absolute, also itself, also actual, also whole, also unconditioned,also first-rate, and also independent. But at the same time, it is also relative, also other, also possible, also partial, also secondary and also dependent.

    2nd answer: The core-Self = In a sentence where you can insert nothing but ‘self’ or one of its synonyms (invariant). Also-Self = Next to the term ‘self’, you can also insert another term without risking mutual exclusion.

    Examples of the difference between core-Self and also-Self = the absolute and relative dimension of P:

  • I did not understand in the past when someone said: “I did this and that myself” – or something like that. Then I thought, “Who else but him did that? It was enough to say, “I did this and that. But it seems that people have an unconscious feeling that the statement “I do this or that” does not clearly define the subject “I,” as if there are many egos in one person and one has to correctly distinguish between a certain “I-self” and other egos, which obviously could not be the I-self, but an “I-also” or a strange ego. (This is the idea of this work.)
  • One says, “I have arms, legs, a heart, a mind, a soul, a spirit, a character,” and so on. I have all that, and I am all that. But what am I exclusively? Where am I only myself and not also myself?

I have assigned further characteristics of the Self to these 7 synonyms.
I mention them here in parentheses. The Self is:

  1. absolute
  2. self (identical with itself, unique, exists on its own, irreplaceable, distinctive, individual)
  3. actual (per se, true, real, definite)
  4. whole (complete, inseparable, unrestricted, unlimited, one)
  5. unconditional (in any case, constant, definite, existential)
  6. first-rate (primary, central, fundamental, superior, most important, determinant, ultimate, direct, primal.)
  7. independent (autonomous, free, detached, indomitable but available for choice, inviolable).

The Self as the personal Absolute is spirit. It also pervades the personal Relative, especially the soul but also the body, which thus becomes an also-Self. (→ Embodiment).
The Self is created by love. (Strange-Selves have other origins). The Self itself is not definable (like God1).73Hint: I partly write God¹ to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology. However, it is evident, believable, plausible and can be experienced. One could say: It is defined by itself, it is self-explaining. Or: It is defined by love / by God¹.

I think especially parents have a natural feeling when they attribute a Self to the newborn (sometimes unconsciously). It is hard for me to imagine that the newborn does not yet have a Self, or that it has to fight for it, or that it can lose it at any time. This is only true of the strange or relative Self.
The true Self is of divine origin and a gift that people can accept. It is divine and individual. One could also say: It is the sphere where God¹ and man are one; where the metapsychic and the psychic are united.
The Self in psychology usually corresponds to the also-Self or relative Self, which can also be called the attributive Self. That is, something is attributed to the Self that makes it a “Self. In this way it has only a relative character, it is not constant, it is not of long duration, and so on. (For details, see the unabridged version, if necessary.).

The `Self’ in Linguistic Usage

Surprisingly similar conclusions about what the self is and what its function is can be seen if one considers the possible uses of the term “self”: In English, it is associated with the noun or personal pronoun. Although it does not stand alone and has a rather shadowy grammatical existence, on closer inspection it has an extraordinary meaning.
`Self’ stands for

• Me and no other person resp. I myself personally. (e.g., “He said that himself.””She has to decide for herself.”) – i.e., it stands for irreplaceability, individuality, uniqueness.
• Authority (e.g., “I decided that myself.”)
• Self also gives a person identity (e.g., “I come to myself.”)
• Of one’s own accord” (e.g., “He does this of his own accord”) – i.e., it stands for freedom.
`Effortlessly’, ‘automatically’ (e.g., “Something goes by itself.”), i.e., it stands for autonomy, easiness.
• Integrity (e.g., “He is the calm himself”).
• `Self-evidence´ (e.g., “It is self-evident”).
• `Alone´ (e.g., „Only he alone can make it “ = „Be yourself”) – it stands for independence and individuality.
• Reflection (e.g., “I come to myself”) = i.e., it stands for sense, identity.
• It stands for one’s own interest (e.g., “I am doing this for myself”.)
• Finally, ‘self’ stands for ‘free choice’ (Fleischer). It has a free position in a sentence and accompanies the personal pronoun. Therefore it can be compared to a faithful and discreet companion.
• The language also shows that the (actual) “self” cannot be manipulated. It is sovereign.
• In the Greek language `self´ is called `autos’ and means there personal.
• Whenever we do or take something personally, it is related to the Self.
• There is no plural form of self per se – so the language shows that there can only be one actual Self. 74I hope these examples are just as obvious in the English language like in German..

Summary (partly repetition)

– Every human being is unique, irreplaceable, one-of-a-kind, and individual. The Self gives identity to a person. The Self is the actual and distinctive core of the person. Although you can talk about a person’s Self in general terms and assign certain characteristics to it, the individual I-Self or You-Self is unique and has its own identity, if it is not strange. 75I have distinguished not strictly between the actual Self and the I-Self in this section.
To put it in a religious way: We are all God’s children but each one is unique.
We have an identity due to our Self if that Self is actual. The well-known answer to God¹ 76Hint: I partly write God¹ to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology. to the question: “Who are you?” “I am who I am” also applies to us, no matter who we are. Therefore, it is something absolute, perhaps even sacred. It is of divine origin. We feel the same way about our own children. They are always allowed to be true to themselves, they are always good enough, they can always trust their Self, they never have to deny themselves. The above qualities of the Self generally state that each of us is unique, but they cannot define what exactly the individuality of each person is. Each individual characteristic is only given by everyone’s I-self.
– The Self is the actual, vital, existential sphere of a person.
– It is the cause of the being and living of people. It is their origin and foundation at the same time. It is also a goal; and it is an answer to the question: “Why do I exist and live?”
– It is free and has autonomy. The Self is absolutely free in its core-sphere and relatively free in the relative-sphere.
– It is potentially eternal = every human is created for eternity.
– It is worthy of love and wants to be loved without preconditions. 77For people with pronounced heteronomy, it is hard to believe they could be loved for their own sake. They yearn indeed for this, but also believe that they have to prove that they are worthy of love. In  parallel, they demand that others prove their love. The strange-Self says: You have to earn love. The Self says: Love is free.
– It is already there, basically inherent. It is for free, a gift. You do not have to earn it or fight for it. The Self is self-evident. But anything Relative is not self-evident.
– The Self is self-evident. But anything Relative is not self-evident.
– In the beginning one is not aware of the Self. But one should learn to know the Self and live from it.
– The Self is also made for self-protection.
– The main signs of the Self are: “I am,” “I will,” and “I am free,” the preservation of the right to self-determination, a life based on the voluntary principle. The real, first-class life is based on this.
– God¹/Love is the key to the Self.
– The Self is at its core a last piece of paradise within us that we should hold and protect. Its core is beyond any kind of earthly responsibility. It is beyond right and wrong and good and bad. It is beyond conscience. At its core, it is also beyond everything that is relative and therefore beyond most of our earthly problems. It can be repressed and suppressed, but it is not to be destroyed, as Hölderlin wrote – unless the person in question definitely does not want this Self. Otherwise it cannot be killed.
– The Self is also the best basis for the integration of all relative and strange things. So it integrates the wrong and the relative evil, such as immoral, abnormal, sick, hardly forgivable things, without being identified with them or being influenced by them.
– The Self lives by itself in its core, therefore it is also somewhat alone – separated from the Relative although it permeates the Relative.
– The Self is unfathomable and cannot be challenged like the Absolute, like love and like God¹. It is therefore only to be believed and not to be proved. It does not need to be justified. 78Religious: God¹ loves the man for his own sake.
– It is the personal, the resource/substance, 79This is what the proverb says: Catch not a shadow and lose the substance = Do not live by the substance. the child (of God¹) within us.
– Self-confidence is the process of becoming aware of the actual Self.
– The Self can be chosen by the I, like the Absolute, but it cannot and need not be produced.
– The Self is independent of our actions and achievements.
– One absolutely needs an Absolute, a Self. If one does not have a true Absolute, a true Self, then one must “make” a relative to a (foreign) Absolute, i.e. to a strange Self.
In summary, we can say that the function of the Self is to give a person absoluteness and to be an absolute basis for a person’s relative sphere.

    What are the “disadvantages” of the Self ¹?
The Self is not conscious from the beginning.
You cannot enlarge it. You cannot create it. But you can choose it.
You cannot prove that this Self is “the right one,” you can only believe it.
A person with one self has no more value than another.
These “disadvantages” are essential reasons for the  Resistance within us to live from this Self.

    Brief differentiation between the actual Self and the strange Self:
Strange-Selves may also be called conditional, second-rate Selves; or personal strange Pseudo-Absolutes.
They manifest, whenever a person takes something Relative as absolute. Then another strange Absolute arises alongside the actual Absolute, which can become a center where second-rate realities accumulate. These are very important when it comes to the emergence of mental disorders. Regarding the strange-Self see ‘The personal It and the strange Self´..

The Personal Relative

I distinguish between personal and non-personal Relatives.
Concerning the personal Relative:
    a) actual personal Relatives
    b) strange personal Relatives
    c) absolutized Relatives within a person = strange Selves (sS).

About a) The actual personal Relative (¹) has an actual Self as the basis. It is also first-rate. It is an also-Self, a peripheral Self. The main representative of the personal Relative is the body of a person. More comprehensively, the personal Relative is mainly the dimension of ‘something’ (or ‘it’): of things, objects, functionalities, materials, parts of a person (physical and psychical).
The actual personal Relative is less important than the core-Self and depends on it.
About b) The strange personal Relatives have strange Selves as a basis.
About c) The absolutized personal Relative is called the strange Self (sS) in the following sections. As mentioned, it plays an important role in the emergence of mental disorders, as discussed in more detail in ‘The personal It and the strange Self´.

Relations between Spirit, Psyche and Body

        Dedicated to my son Robert

The illustration symbolizes relations between body, psyche, and spirit in the first-rate personal sphere.
(I see the connections between spirit and matter or being and consciousness similarly.)
The boundaries between them are like semipermeable membranes: Spirit permeates and determines psyche and body, just as the Absolute permeates and determines the Relative.
Conversely, the spirit is neither dominated by the psyche nor by the body, but is influenced by them in the form of conditional feedback. (Symbolized by the dotted lines).
Simply put, a good spirit is interested in its soul and body, but you cannot manipulate the spirit.    

The Self as the personal Absolute is spirit. 80The terms spirit and self, I use interchangeably here in and in the positive connotation.
The spirit has different characteristics in comparison with the body and psyche and determines those two. Body and psyche influence each other. See also the Embodiment theories. 81E.g. J. J. von Uexküll, F. J. Varela, H .G. Petzold and others).
The body and psyche can influence the spirit (the Self) but they cannot dominate it. In other words: They influence the person (P) but do not dominate him/her, as long as the person is in the first-rate situation.
Body and psyche change, depending on which Self resp. spirit the person possesses. That means that something of P (such as a feeling) changes, depending on whether he/she is self-determined by the Self or strange-determined by a strange Self. Changes in a first-rate body or psyche do not change the core Self but changes of a first-rate Self always change the body and the psyche. That means also that relative changes within a person only have relative effects.
You cannot see the body and the psyche as absolutely separate from the Self because they are not detached; They can only be seen as dependent or relatively detached.

    In the second-rate personal spheres, the relations are different: Body and psyche can become (pseudo-) absolute, (e.g., in the case of an idolization of the body). If body and psyche dominate P, they assume the role of a strange Self (sS), and P is then no longer him-/herself in this case but is strange to him-/herself, a hybrid. Depending on which sphere or part of the person has become a strange Absolute/ resp. Self, this will determine the other P-components. Then, in contrast to the first-rate P, the body can determine the psyche or the spirit – or the psyche the spirit. But this kind of strange Self is also unstable and expensive.

    Every person has one Self and usually many strange-Selves too, which act as bases or as centers. Therefore, a person’s body and soul are usually only relatively real and also strange, relatively whole and not whole or even divided.

      In first-rate personal spheres spirit, soul and body are neither separated from each other nor fused with each other. They are a differentiated unity. In the second-rate personal spheres however, there is separation and fusion.
First-rate, spirit and body appear to be two poles of a whole (the human). The “pole” spirit is less structured but lighter, more variable, and more flexible, while the “pole” body is more structured, more fixed, and more immovable.
The psyche has characteristics of both sides and is located in between, but belongs more to the spirit, depending on how you define the psyche. 
It seems to me very important, especially for therapies, to know that not only does the spiritual sphere have much more influence on the psyche than the body, but also that the spiritual sphere should be considered more independent and variable. It should be the focus of therapeutic interventions for personality change.
Finally, it is also relevant that changes produced by a good spirit are basically free of side effects. Of course, therapeutic approaches that focus on the material-somatic sphere (especially psychotropic drugs) should not be excluded. In fact, they are often the first and most important measures, especially in acute situations. In the long run, however, they lead to a symptomatic, less sustainable and less effective therapy with more side effects than a therapy with the primacy of the spirit.

Specific Information about the I

About the Term 

It is a concept in psychology and philosophy that is defined and described differently depending on the school. In psychoanalysis it is mostly `Ego’.
I use the term `Ego’ only for the strange, second-rate I. Otherwise, I use the term “I” for any situation in which “I” is used in everyday language.

Examples from the relevant literature:
    • “Term for the core of consciousness, the carrier of self-awareness of the physical-psychic  wholeness of a person.” (Schischkoff)
    • “The itself self-aware origin and carrier of all psychic actions (thinking, realizing, feeling, acting) of an individual.”
    • “In psychoanalysis, the ego is an internal agent of the psyche (along with the id and superego) that helps mediate between the various demands of the external world, the sexual drives, the id, and the moral demands of the superego with its conscious ego functions (perception, memory, thinking, planning, learning) and its unconscious ego functions (defense mechanisms).”
    • “In behaviorist theories, the sum total of an individual’s behaviors.” 82The last 3 quotes from: Brockhaus Encyclopedia, Mannheim 1996th.

Own Definition of the ‘I’

a) The term ‘I’ has the same meaning as in common usage.

It stands for the individual person in its entirety, who speaks of itself in the role of the subject. That is, the term ‘I’ as a personal pronoun means everything that I can say about myself. The emphasis is on the active part of the personality, its role as a subject (I act, I perceive, I feel, etc.).    
b) ‘The I´ resp. `the Ego’ as an object (for example, the I as a subject becomes the object of psychological investigation) – but then, in contrast to ‘a’, it is possible to say: someone is investigating me.

‘Types’ of the I / Ego

I distinguish:
      a) the actual I
      b) the strange I (= Ego)
      c) the Non-Ego

To a)
The actual I stands for a person, who has an actual Self as a basis. It is equivalent to an I-self, or else synonymously: first-rate I = I¹.
This term includes not only the first-rate absolute dimension but also the relative dimension of the I.
The term `Only-I-self´ includes only the absolute sphere of the I, its individual unique core of being, which also distinguishes it from other people.
The relative sphere of the I-self, which could be called the ` Also- I-self´, expresses parts of me (my body, my mind, etc.) or similarities with other people. (“I am also like you”.)

Structure of the actual, first-rate I:

IA = Absolute choice of the I. GA = God’s absolute love.

To b)
The  strange-I = I² or  Ego. Its main characteristic is that these parts are controlled by strange Selves (sS). See also S. Freud: “The ego is not master in its own house.” Freud was only describing what I call second-rate personal, the first-rate was unknown to him.
To c)
Non-Ego‘= I°.  For details see  Genesis of the Nothingness  later.

The normal human being, represented by the personal pronoun ‘I’, is made of its own, actual I-self-part and strange-I-parts (resp. Ego-parts), that overlay the actual I-self. The Egos are vulnerable and destructible but not the core of the actual I-self, even though this may be overlaid by Ego parts. This fact is very important for the therapeutic stance.
The ego needs an absolute basis. The basis can be either the actual Absolute or just an alleged, strange Absolute. So the basis can be either the Self itself or alternatively a strange Self. The I by itself is too weak, too incomplete, and (except for the `absolute choice’) too relative to be a complete, undivided I-self.

The I chooses its Absolute(s) (perhaps unconsciously or intuitively). In this way, its Relatives are also determined. If the I chooses the actual +A, the I remains the actual I. It remains the I-self. Only when the I chooses +A is it strong enough to prevent itself from being dominated by absolutized Relatives, that is, by strange Pseudo-absolutes.
If the I chooses a Relative (R) as its Absolute, then a strange Pseudo-Absolute (sA) arises with a strange Self (sS), and on the basis of that a strange I (Ego) arises. Then, in addition to the actual I, one (or more) strange Ego(s) arise.
Thus, the I can be actual and first-rate, or it can be an ego operating on the basis of a strange Self. So the I can be an I-self or a strange I (Ego) or also a “Non-ego”. In the last two cases, I am doing something, but what I am doing does not correspond to my real intentions, not to what I myself really want.
In my opinion, this situation, which is the result of Inversions, is the most important basis for the emergence of mental disorders. (See later in ‘Psychiatry‘).

Differentiations of the I

I will only touch on this topic briefly, since the differentiations of the psyche/person have already been described in greater detail earlier, and they are very similar.
(→ General Differentiations)
With regard to the main differentiations, it is mainly about:
     I. Forms of being of the I (my forms of being).
    II. Forms and manifestations of life of the I (my life-forms and manifestations).
    III. Qualities of the I (my qualities and characteristics).
    IV. The I as a subject, object and in contexts (predicate).

As mentioned, I am guided by the words of everyday speech and not by the psychoanalytical or behavioral definitions of the I. That is, everything that is said after “I …” or “My …”, I count as a part of to the I-sphere.
And everything where you say ‘I myself’ is only part of the I-self area.

Overview: Classification of the I       


I and Self

Overview: Comparison of the Self  and I

Relations between I and Self

In my opinion, the use of language provides the best answer to the question of what connections there are between the I and the Self. In any meaningful statement in which the first-rate I is used as the subject, it is possible to replace the “I” with “I myself”. You can say, “I do it. You can also say, “I do it myself. The latter formulation is used whenever you want to emphasize the irreplaceability of the person by something else: “I and no other, I and only I do this. The addition of the (my-)self shows that something is individual, not interchangeable.
Later we will realize that the I can only work with the actual Self without problems, and not with the strange Self. The I and the actual Self form a natural union when the I affirms the actual Self. Then it is the I-self. It is an original desire of the I to be the I-self. Why we often do not fulfill this need will be described later.(→ Resistance).
The Self itself cannot act as a subject. You cannot say, “(My) Self responds” or “(My) Self acts”. The Self needs the I (and God¹?) to act, just as the I needs a Self. The actions of the I would be inconceivable without some connection to something like a Self. Who else should act if not I? When a person does not say “I myself” but only “I,” it seems to be a simplified formulation, as if people always act themselves.
Or does the omission of “self” show that it is not always clear that we are acting, even when it seems obvious? I think so. Sure, we always seem to be the ones acting, but sometimes there are so many strange forces and emotions within us that there is not much left of the actual Self. These other strange things that also cause us to act the way we act are called the strange Self (sS). Sometimes we realize this kind of heteronomy. For example, if I only fulfill other people’s expectations, then I am determined by others. Although I am still acting, it is not the true Self that determines me, but a strange Self.
So the I can act with the intentions of the actual Self or the strange Selves. Most of the time these will be actions and processes that happen unconsciously and subconsciously.

Religious View

The I and the Self are related but not identical. I and Self are a whole when the Self is quasi-divine. The I-self and God¹ are then one, without loss of identity or individuality. One might also say: The I has its roots in the Self and the Self in God¹ – and in myself. The I finds most of its strength, its inner peace, even the possibility of fulfillment of all aspects of life in the actual Self, in God¹. But the human being must confirm to the actual Self that he wants it. So, as I said, the ego is absolutely absolute when it comes to the decision to affirm or reject the actual Self – that is, for or against God¹ or “the good principle. But only there.
(For details, see section: The absolute attitude” of the I)
Besides this aspect, the I cannot be absolute without disturbances. In that case, it would try to be its own Self, its own God¹and would not be able to cope.
But the actual Self can integrate all types of I – no matter how the I is: Whether it is right or wrong, responsible or irresponsible, healthy or sick, successful or inefficient, even whether it is based on a strange Self (!) or not, the person can always be identical, can feel worthy and good.
The I-self is always worth the same and basically identical to itself because it is not determined by a Relative. We cannot increase the value of the I-self, nor do we have to. What the I-self does is ultimately (!) only of relative importance. The I-self is by no means flawless. The person who lives his Self may make more mistakes than others; the Self (God¹) will compensate for everything. The breath of life given by the true Self is almost unlimited. It is only in the case of the above-mentioned absolute decision for absolute evil that the person loses himself. It is only in the case of the above-mentioned absolute decision for absolute evil that the person loses himself.

I, Self and my ‘Somethings’

“The facts of life do not penetrate to the sphere in which our beliefs are cherished;
they did not engender those beliefs,
and they are powerless to destroy them …” Marcel Proust, Swann’s Way.

I, Self and something (of me) are all interconnected. They form an undivided wholeness in the first-rate personal.
The I is rooted in the Self. I and Self form the I-self. My ‘somethings’ are like relative parts of the I-self. The structure of the psyche can be compared to a tree: The tree has roots that form the base (the Self), it has leaves (somethings) – and the whole thing is the tree (I-self). The concept of the I-self includes the something just as the concept of the tree includes the leaves. However, the term leaves does not include the tree but a tree remains a tree without the leaves. So, the term ‘something’ does not include the I-self but conversely the I-self remains the I-self even without the something.
So, the I can have an actual Self as its basis or as its roots but it can also be based on a strange Self. Then it is like a tree with strange roots. It is a hybrid, a hermaphrodite, or a mongrel. The individual is no longer in-dividual (indivisible) but `divided’ (divisible). His ego is a strange ego based on a strange Self.
In the best case, when the I is based on the actual +Self, it is identical with itself and integrates whatever is personally relative (the something). The I-self can integrate (all) something(s), everything that is relative, even if it is wrongly absolutized, without being identical. The following symbol shows the first-class status of the Self in relation to the something.

I postulate that mental disorders can arise when the roles of Self and something are reversed. Then the actual Self becomes a kind of something and something becomes a kind of Self – a strange Self. It is about: Who dominates? Do I have something, or does something have me? In other words: Am I I (and also something), or am I mainly something and only a little bit of I? (In the latter case, I call the dominant something ‘It’.)
In mental disorders, a person’s absolute sphere, the Self, is disturbed. Therefore, the main focus should be on protecting and strengthening the Self.
The conflict dynamic is mainly between the I based on one Self and the I parts based on other Selves. There are parallels to the general dynamics of the human person between the Absolute and the Relative, or in other words: It shows the human being caught between heaven, earth and hell.

The Absolute Attitude of the I

Synonyms: absolute I-Self with the absolute basic or existential attitude/will, absolute point of decision, fundamental decision of the heart, highest absolute responsibility of the I and the absolute right of self-determination. It seems as the personale absolute subject, too.
Short: IA, PA. In the positive case: primary virtue, absolute good will in principle.
This “absolute attitude of the I” is similar to the “absolute I” of Johann Gottlieb Fichte and the “absolute spirit” of Hegel, but not identical with either.

This absolute I-self cancels the object-subject opposition but distinguishes both and gives priority to the subject.
The center point of the I-self and thus of the person is constituted by an absolute decision point for + A  or for −A on the basis of an inviolable dignity and an unconditional right of self-determination.

As a completely independent center of a person or an individual, it corresponds only to a “pure” absolute personal / individual subject, because otherwise person and individual are more or less subject and object at the same time. See also terms `subjectoid´ and `objectoid´ as terms of second-rate subjects or objects.
In this point, the highest or the most actual absolute of a person is directly confronted with the opposite actual Absolute (+A # ‒A). I already mentioned the following actual Absolutes: God¹, as the positive Absolute (+A) 83 God is still more than the + Absolute. on the one side, the negative Absolute (‒A) on the other side and the free attitude/ will of a person toward those. 84G. Herder calls man the “first freedman” (Phil.TB)
I think, at least in this respect, the person is completely himself and completely free. This means that the I only has an absolute meaning when it comes to the absolute, existential decision to choose absolute good or absolute evil. I see here, like Kierkegaard, Herder and others, the person in an absolutely free attitude towards the Absolute (which does not have to be a conscious decision!). 85This `absolute attitude of the I´ is similar to the ‘absolute I’ of Johann Gottlieb Fichte and the `absolute spirit´ of Hegel but not identical to both. [Hint: I partly write God¹ to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
The choice of +A or -A is an existential right of human self-determination. Freud may have thought along similar lines with his distinction between `libido´ and `destrudo’ (destructive instinct). Goethe, on the other hand, saw the fundamental human conflict in the “conflict between unbelief and belief” ( West-East-Divan, Israel in the Desert.)
These are only hypotheses, which may seem irrelevant. But in the positive case, as I will explain later, this decision is the “only” prerequisite for the acceptance of a fundamental, positive, absolute Self. The existence of an absolute decision point is also important because I believe that Love, or God¹, leaves us this free choice and does not deterministically determine who are the “good” and “bad” people. The individual stands at this point on the same level as God¹ and can in principle (!) want the good (+A) or the evil (-A).
If a person is fundamentally (!) well-intentioned, then, in my understanding, he has decided on an absolutely positive, indestructible (core) Self. All of these people, I believe, go to “heaven” whether they are religious or not. Together with God’s unconditional love for the person, his own Self forms something that can also be called the ‘divine Self’ or the ‘heavenly Self’. At this point, the person has not only absolute freedom, but also absolute identity, security, and eternity. If a person is wise, he lives from this center.
However, if a person fundamentally and irrevocably desires absolute evil, then I believe this leads to his or her own destruction (the so-called “mortal sin”).86I postulate here the primacy of a free will over the Absolute instead of a act of faith in contrast to Martin Luther, but also in contrast to legalism (doing good works).
[Hint: I partly write God¹ to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
See also  `Right and wrong´.

Other choices
In all other cases, the I has only relative options and makes only relative decisions. This has a favorable and an unfavorable side. The favorable side is that, even in an absolute sense, I only have to make one (perhaps unconscious) decision to feel basically free and liberated. This gives the person freedom and relief! I do not have to do anything. 87It is not without reason that people have decision-making difficulties without this free ‘metaposition’.
The “unfavorable” side is: I cannot redeem myself or increase my value through certain actions.
A free absolute or relative will is not to be confused with a will that is determined by an strange Absolute that forces us to want what we do not actually want. “Protect me from what I want!”
(→ Obsessive-compulsive disorder)

The choices described are similar to the theses of standpoint theories. However, they mark only relative (earthly) standpoints, whereas I assume the possibility of the existence of an absolute standpoint.

    “Primary and Secondary Virtues”/ Relativity of Morality?

“The secondary virtues included in particular diligence, loyalty, obedience, discipline, sense of duty, punctuality, reliability, orderliness, politeness, cleanliness, etc., mostly from the catalog of Prussian virtues … Instead, [later] post-materialistic values such as humanity, creativity, and self-realization were emphasized … Immanuel Kant allows only one primary virtue: `There is nowhere in the world, indeed, nowhere apart from it, that can be considered good without qualification, but only good will. If this were lacking, all other virtues “might also become extremely evil and harmful.” 88

Similar to Kant and Kierkegaard, I believe that it is primarily a matter of a person’s conscious or unconscious absolute will (or attitude) towards the absolute, in the sense of a basic attitude towards absolute good or evil (→ absolute basic attitude), which in this work I call, in the positive case, principled goodwill. In this sense, questions of morality would be subordinate to this “primary virtue” and, by contrast (!), of relative importance.
In my opinion, a distinction between situational (relative) will and principled existential will as an attitude to life would also make sense. For me, the “primary virtue” in this sense would be a primarily positive will/attitude toward the good. (→ absolute good will)

Individuation as Psychological Concept

    A choice of literature

• “The principle of individuation[…] generally describes the way, in which a thing finds identity, that distinguishes itself from others. The concept […] can be found in publications by Carl Jung, Gilbert Simondon, Bernard Stiegler, Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, David Bohm, Henri Bergson, Gilles Deleuze and Manuel De Landa …” 89, 2020
• “In Jungian psychology, also called analytical psychology, `individuation´ names the process in which the individual self develops out of an undifferentiated unconscious – seen as a developmental psychic process during which innate elements of personality, the components of the immature psyche, and the experiences of the person’s life become integrated over time into a well-functioning whole.” 90, 2020
“Jung saw the process of individuation as a lifelong, incomplete process of steady approximation to a ‘distant goal’: the Self. … The person is always called upon to actively confront the problems that arise along the way of individuation and to take responsibility for the decisions of the Self. Individuation means not following ‘what someone should do’ or ‘what would be right in general’, but listening to the Self, recognizing what the inner wholeness (the Self) wants to achieve ‘with me or by me’ in this particular situation.”91, 2020.
• Example of a sociological concept: Bernard Stiegler, who considers  “the psychic individuation always as a collective process.” 92, 2020.


Individuation in the above sense is, of course, a very important process of personal self-development. In my opinion, it will be most successful if it takes place on the basis of a personal Absolute that not only has to be constituted by the individual himself, but that already exists from the beginning. This primary Absolute, this primary innate Self, is seldom considered in literature. In fact, however, it corresponds to human experience, as reflected, for example, in universal human rights or in love relationships. There, individuation is subordinated to a pre-existing absolute self-being, a first-rate dignity, freedom, and uniqueness of the human being.
It is not the “becoming” that comes first, but the “being” and the “you already are”. Thus, an already existing absolute individuality is presupposed and is superior to individuation. This innate, absolute individuality and identity does not have to be created by the person.
It is this that is of unconditional, vital importance, not the above-mentioned processes of individuation, no matter how important they may be. However, if the latter are of absolute importance, we are fundamentally overstrained, because the individual should always be on the way to find and reach the “ultimate goal” (as described by C. Jung), to feel identical with himself. (Perhaps many people with identity disorders, such as schizophrenic patients, have resigned and given up the struggle for such a self-becoming, or have never come to know this primary absolute innate Self).

However, absolute, inherent individuality does not convey the illusion of a feeling of total being identical with the Self, but more realistically, the feeling of a fundamental, deep, and indestructible self-being, which is the best condition for individuation.
An absolute, actual individuality and identity of a person is not provable. It is an a priori. Only relative identity – what you also are, or what you make of yourself – is provable. Perhaps one should say, as God does, “I am who I am,” or: “I do not have to become different. I can even regress without losing myself”.
(PS: As mentioned above, a newborn would have no individuality without an inherent self. However, with this Self, every newborn is already born as a unique, irreplaceable, individual, lovable personality.)
According to my theory, individuation is a process of relative importance. In the core Self, the person is completely different from other people, while the relative self-spheres show similarities with other people. This theory shows the person neither as completely different from other people nor as a collective product, but also integrates both concepts. (See also “The journey is the destination” in  Buddhism).

The Concrete Person and His Analysis of Language

How does the concrete person appear in this context?
Looking at the analysis of language, one could say: What the person says about himself and the world, or what others say about him, gives the most concrete conclusions about the person. What is most important is what is absolutely relevant to the person.
This can be seen in absolute statements in sentences or words.
(See also `How are inversions expressed? (Linguistic Analysis)´.

For example, it is likely that a person who frequently uses phrases such as “I absolutely must” or “I may not” is making relative needs absolute (Asp. 11), or that another person is expressing that his or her goal in life is to become a millionaire, or that ownership (Asp. 9) is being made absolute.
In this respect, an individual speech analysis provides important clues to the psychological situation of the person concerned, since in practice what a person says about himself or what is said about him is usually the most important source for the assessment of an individual. However, thought and spoken words do not always coincide, so such an analysis of speech must be considered imperfect, since the absolute often cannot be defined absolutely. However, I believe that the present concept is also very suitable for diagnostic purposes, although this is not the main intention of this script. In this case, the primary task would be to consider the respective individual Absolutes of the person, as I have tried to express in the sketchy sentences of Hölderlin at the end of the part “Metapsychiatry” in the unabridged German script.

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
pR = the psychic Relevant
r = relative
R = the Relative (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.


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.:
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. New York, 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, Arnild: 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.
Lüdmann, Mike. 2018. „Allgemeiner Theorieverlust in der Allgemeinen Psychologie?“. Journal für Psychologie 26 (1):112-22.
Lurker, M.: Wörterbuch der Symbolik.-Alfred Kroener 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,
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.,
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,
Vinnai, Gerhard: Die Austreibung der Kritik aus der Wissenschaft… ,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,
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,
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].

Author and Contact

I am a psychiatrist/ psychotherapist and have worked for decades above all psychotherapeutically.

I have no liabilities or obligations to any individuals or groups.

I am glad about feedback to:

Dr. Torsten Oettinger
Wewelsburger Weg 7
D- 33100 Paderborn


© by T. Oettinger, 1999/2024. Lizenz CC BY SA

This publication was partially translated or proofread by

Dr. Robert Oettinger, Astrid Quick, Pia Burt, Joschua, Barbara Minnich and myself with the help of Google Translate and DeepL (partly DeepL /write).

I am trying to improve the translation.

Last update 2023/02/09