Author: Torsten Oettinger
2023-01-12, 8th Edition
Metapsychiatry Psychiatry Schizophrenia Philosophy Linguistics Religion
Mottos: `Every ideology is (potentially) deadly – it demands and justifies different victims.´ (Andrea M. Meneghin)
“Man is an ideological animal.” (Louis Althusser)
In part this `METAPSYCHIATRY´, I also use the classification shown in part `Metapsychology´ and start from the hypothesis that mental disorders are mainly caused by `Inversions´ of the fundamental meanings, the dimensions, mentioned above. I.e., if absolute, relative or 0 meanings (or similar fundamental meanings) are confused, I speak of inversion.
The confusion of such fundamental meanings is ubiquitous. Typical examples are ideologies. These, as well as similar dogmatic attitudes in families or in the individual, occur with claim to absoluteness that absolutizes something Relative and at the same time negates and excludes others. This leads to fundamental reversals of meanings: What was a Relative, now becomes a ‘strange Pseudo-Absolute’ (sA) and the negated becomes a `strange Nothing´ (s0).1For the sake of simplicity, nothingness and nothing, as well as strange, foreign and alien are used as synonyms here, whilst 0 frequently represents s0 . [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
Strange Absolute and Nothing form pairs of opposites, ‘all-or-nothing-complexes’, which I have generally called “It“ and in the person “strange Self” (sS), because these terms describe very well what is meant:
`it’= a general, unspecified cause of an occurrence (e.g. It makes me angry/ sad/ sick …), `strange Self´= a strange personal center. 2Not to be confused with the Freudian `Id´.
These Its, or strange Selves, represent new, strange, independent entities which can cause strange, second-rate realities general and personal and thus also mental disorders.
If the entire psyche (i.e. all aspects of the psyche) is involved in this process, psychotic symptoms may ensue. If, however, these events only affect one or a small number of aspects, then, depending on the nature of these aspects, symptoms will arise which are ‘merely’ neurotic, psychosomatic, or of another category. In my opinion, these diseases can only be explained if they are based on disturbances in the absolute sphere of a person. If a person can accept problems as a part of life, considering them to be only of relative importance, it is highly unlikely that this person will succumb to a mental illness. However, when ‘something’ Relative is absolutized and becomes established as an Absolute, this Absolute will function as an It or strange Self which determines the person.
This “something” will be given too absolute a status, whereas the person will be attributed too relative a status.
This “something“ will attain too much independence, whereas the person will become too dependent.
This “something“ will become the subject, whereas the person becomes its object.
This “something“ will become personified, whereas the person will become ‘something’.
This “something“ will dominate the person and not the person the `something´.
This is the “victory“ of the Relative over a person.
To understand the genesis of such disorders, it is important to look into a process, that I name ‘Spreading and compression‘.
By spreading, every inversion may cause multiple disorders, just as a disorder may be caused by a variety of different inversions.
This process is explained in more detail in this part ‘Metapsychiatry’.
WHAT MEANS METAPSYCHIATRY
I define Metapsychiatry as a theory which reflects on psychiatric topics from higher points of view. These are above all worldview standpoints. Therefore, one could also speak of `philosophy of psychiatry’.
However, Metapsychiatry also includes sociological, psychological, neurological, biological and language spheres since these also deal with important psychiatric and psychological issues.
Note: The term “Metapsychiatry” is used with slightly different connotations in American English. That meaning is rarely used in German. 3The term “Metapsychiatry” is used in American English with other connotation. This meaning is hardly used in German. “Metapsychiatry” is a term there for a spiritual teaching and form of psychotherapy developed by the psychiatrist Thomas Hora (1914-1995) → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapsychiatry .
As a psychotherapeutic method, however, this is not the same as the Metapsychotherapy I described. Nevertheless the approach of Thomas Hora, who tries to apply psychotherapy to spiritual, religious, is also helpful. However, I have significant differences to his opinions, as he introduced them in his well-known book “Beyond the Dream.”
While metapsychology focuses on things that are important to our soul, Metapsychiatry focuses on what of those matters can make us mentally ill and how that happens, resp. which of the psychical relevant matters are pathogenic or “sick” themselves. Generally speaking: Metapsychiatry is about everything that has to do with mental illnesses. To put it very briefly, one can say: Metapsychiatry is the study of everything sick psychical Relevant. 4(→5 https://new-psychiatry.com/wp-content/uploads/New-Psychiatry-Web.html#mozTocId217560 )
Since the causes of mental disorders may be in person or environment, a metapsychiatric view is indispensable about this topic. We may be affected by positive or negative, healthy or morbid factors in our surroundings, in our fellows and even in nature, which is often not taken into consideration. Therefore, usual psychoanalysis and psychotherapy can become one-sided.
I reflect on this area from (general) linguistic, existential-philosophical and religious-scientific perspectives. Their common theme at issue here is what I call “the strange psychological Relevant” or “strange, second-rate realities”, which include mental illnesses, too. I hypothesize that `inversions´ of basic or fundamental meanings (absolute, relative, nothing and their synonyms) are the main causes of the emergence of these strange realities and thus mental disorders.
I repeat: `Fundamental meanings´ (dimensions) means that it is 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 relevant thing in its respective most fundamental meaning. Thereby the Absolute has the meaning of the very first, primary causes, to which all other causes can be traced back in the end. Therefore I try to reflect possible causes of mental illnesses from this last reason.
Such reversals of basic meanings arise, above all, by attitudes that make a claim to absoluteness that excludes other attitudes. `Isms´ or ideologies are typical examples of this. 61. In this publication, the term ‘ideology’ has the meaning of a dogmatic worldview. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology . Or, in simpler terms, ideologies are absolutized attitudes.
2. I will discuss the role of the negative Absolute (‒A) later. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
The ideologies are only a well-known example of at least as important dogmatic and pathogenic attitudes in families or individuals – or for those who lack fundamental orientations at all.
I will explain this in greater detail in the following paragraphs.
Since the causes of mental disorders may be in person or environment, the metapsychiatric view is indispensable about this topic.
We may be affected by positive or negative, healthy or morbid factors in our surroundings, in our fellows and even in nature, which might cause our health to improve or decline, which is often not taken into consideration. Therefore, usual psychoanalysis and psychotherapy will tend to become rather one-sided.
In this section of ‘metapsychiatry’, I will discuss the following topics:
1. The `inversion´: The affected person confuses a real Absolute(s) with another matter.
2. In a second step, I describe how this creates a strange, dominant entity that I call “It.”
Then, I will explain how this `It´ develops its own dynamic, transforming reality and people.
3. Further, I will show how these `Its´ unite to form bigger complexes and which role they have with regard to the pathogenesis of mental disorders (e.g., “It makes me sick!”).
The most commonly used terms and abbreviations here
A = The Absolute (if not otherwise indicated, it is the first-rate Absolute/ A¹)
R = The Relative
W = World resp. reality; P = Person; I = I (WPI)
sA = strange Absolute
sS = strange Self (the personal sA) 7More about it in: strange-Self .
∀ = 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.
1. The It is always in three parts but may appear predominantly in two parts or one part. Therefore, I do not always speak of the whole It but sometimes only of its parts (then often sA instead of It if its character is in the foreground), although the unnamed parts are always present.
2. These abbreviations are also made clear in this graphic or you can find all abbreviations at the end of this publication.
Hypothesis: Inversions generate strange, second-rank realities, which, in turn, are the most important basis for the emergence of mental disorders. These inversions have their origins, above all, in ideologies or individual dogmatized attitudes. Inversion means confusion of fundamental meanings, especially of the Absolute (A) and Relative (R). A Relative thereby becomes a strange Absolute (sA) and the Absolute becomes strange nothingness (s0).
These sA and s0 create together a new, dominant entity that I call ‘It’.
These Its produce strange (second-rate) realities – which form the basis of mental disorders. 81. These preliminary statements are further elaborated in the course of work.
2. The reality strange dominant I call for the sake of variety times `It´ or `sA´.
3. As said – this `It´ is not identical with S. Freud´s `Id´.
Inversions and their effects may appear in an individual as well as in a social setting. While it is obvious that both spheres are interconnected, showing similar characteristics and dynamics, this study will primarily investigate the personal area, since this publication, our focus is on mental disorders.
Mental disorders emerge whenever a complex in a person (a combination of personal Its) has reached particular characteristics and a certain extent. Of course, complexes found in society or an individual’s environment may cause mental illness as well – however, to do so, they need to first be internalized and personalized.
Following the logic of this argumentation, primary causes of pr changes/ disorders and thus also mental disorders will ultimately (!) need to be sought in an Absolute. All other causes are necessarily second-rate – these are causes that are results of other causes. Therefore, the pathogenesis of mental disorders originally begins mostly with the patient’s attitude to an Absolute and finally leads to disorders, of which some are mental disorders. This is a very interesting and complicated process that will be discussed briefly in the following section.
The usual inversion has two parts, which are inextricably linked:
1) The absolutization of a Relative (R)
2) The negation of an actual Absolute (A¹).
To 1) Note: For the sake of simplicity, the `Relative´ stands in this publication for everything, which is not an Absolute.
By an inversion, something Relative is made absolute, and can establish a strange Absolute (sA). Instead of the primacy of the Absolute and the subordination of the Relative (R), the Relative wins by the inversion the upper hand about the Absolute. As sA, the newly absolutized Relative displays very different characteristics than that which was originally purely Relative: on the one hand, it is inherently relative, on the other hand, it has some absolute traits since it is absolutized. Thereby, a strange new entity is created within reality or a person which is autonomous and dominant.
In the next step, this new sA constitutes a system of domination. As a new Absolute, it has the power to subdue other Relatives. It cut them off the influence of the actual A. Thus it forms a system as a new strange Absolute (sA) with subordinated Relatives. Regarding the person: The new sA subordinates and changed the person in the area in which it prevails.
We shall see later that this dominance of the sA about the person is not purely negative but also positive. This fact plays an important role in understanding mental disorders.
To 2) The establishment of this sA-system is accompanied by a negation of these three actual Absolutes: 1. The + A, 2. the ‒A, 3. the personal `absolute attitude’. (More on that later.) Thus, the corresponding actual world/reality/personality is lost.
Thereby, however, the process is not completed. Since every new sA also becomes an opposite to an actual A (or to another sA), the Absolutes enter into a struggle for supremacy in the respective spheres of reality or person. This means that we are often exposed to very diverse contradictions and tensions, which are based on various Absolutes. Sometimes a sA may be fighting another sA but, sometimes it is making pacts with others sA, too – however, every sA will fall into opposition and contradiction to the actual Absolutes. 9+A and ‒A.
At the same time, every sA or It is divided within itself and paradoxical. While the inversions persist, these confrontations will persist. It is for this reason that the world/ the person is unable to find peace and prone to develop mental disorders.
We return to the hypothesis that a great number of different inner and outer worlds/realities exist: an actual world and many, strange, second-rate worlds, 101. The actual absolutely Negative (‒A) is not at issue here. 2. The terms strange and second rate (or ²) in this script have the same meaning. I use sometimes one, sometimes the other term, so that the reading is not too boring.
Synonyms are also the terms actual and first-rate;`ns’ stands for` new, strange´; BLQC for being, life, quality, connections. Further see `Metapsychology´. and we find that all these worlds have absolute and relative (AR-) dimensions and consist of the 4 main aspects (BLQC) resp. of 23 individual aspects regarding the `Differentiations´ . These different worlds are determined by their respective Absolutes, which form center and basis for the relative areas dependent on them. How we live, whether we are healthy or sick, will depend on such external and internal worlds/realities. But since an A always governs these worlds/realities, one might say that, first and foremost, our lives depend on these A. For an individual, the Absolutes in his/ her inner world have a direct, definitive influence, whereas the external world (environment) has a more indirect influence on the person. In this respect, the question is important how the person can shield their internal world against a pathogenic environment. Fortunately, the first-rate world is stronger than the strange worlds/ realities in the long term. As said: While the first-rate world is guided by A, the strange worlds are dominated by strange Absolutes. We will see below that the restoration (`religio´) of the dominant position of the actual A is an essential objective of therapy.
Acquiring an understanding of the causes and nature of mental disorders may be difficult for the following reasons:
• The person is embedded in relationships and contexts and that´s why illness may have causes that are exterior to the individual.
• Causes of illness can have impacts for other people and not for the polluter himself.
• Inversions can cause many, not just mental disorders.
• The causes of mental disorders are often hidden, indirect and very complex.
• The affected is often not aware of the actual causes of mental disorders.
• Every inversion diversifies resp. spreads in such a way that it can cause many different disorders, and on the other hand one disorder can be generated by many different inversions.
• The negative may not have only negative impacts, and the positive may have negative impacts. That´s why the positive can also be a cause of mental disorders.
• Often, subjective experience and objective facts are not identical:
This means that disorders might be experienced positive and health negative. But in an objective view, too, illnesses are also not absolutely negative and health not absolutely positive.
• Disorders or their causes may also be considered to be positive by society and therefore encouraged (e.g. workaholism).
Now I will exactly explain in the following paragraphs:
1. The `inversion´.
2. I describe how the inversion creates the strange, dominant entity that I call `It´ and how this `It´ changes reality and people.
3. I show how these `Its´ unite to form bigger complexes and which role they have concerning the pathogenesis of mental disorders.
“There are things of the first order and things of the lowest order. … By exceeding the permissible space, things feel abused … the things of the first order that have been pushed into the last place are dying of exhaustion. Conversely, however, … it happens that things that have been pushed into the first place do not thrive but dry up and shatter.” José Ortega y Gasset. Similar H.R. Niebuhr,11(https://thinkingreed.wordpress.com/2012/01/27/h-r-niebuhrs-principles/ ) P. Tillich and W. Daim.
By `inversion’ I mean the confusion of the dimensions of existence. (See Dimensions).
To denote the dimensions I use the terms ‘absolute’, ‘relative’ and ‘nothing’ as guiding terms.
These indicate rank (hierarchy) and fundamental meaning of the different forms of existence.12`Fundamental´ means every psychical relevant with its most important, fundamental meaning.
Inversions lead to the formation of strange entities (`Its´), which in turn generate strange, “wrong” realities (W²), like psychical illnesses.
– Inversions: Confusions of fundamental meanings, rankings, orders, hierarchies.
– Inversion: Ideologizations which are dominant in the affected person and connected to a denial of actual Absolutes.
– Religious people will see an absence of God as the basis of inversions.
For ‘inversions’ one could also use: mistake or mix-up.
To some terms
Reversals = Results of inversions.
Examples: Subject-object-reversal, person-thing-reversal, etc.
See all reversals in Summary table column U.
Reversal into the opposite
Reaction formation = Reversal into the opposite as a defense.13Note: I´m sorry, in some places I do not exactly differentiate between inversions and reversals.
The story of creation in the Bible is an example of the emergence of the aforementioned strange realities, the “world”. The snake claims: “You will be like God.” This idea tempts us to doubt God. To me, this is the basic structure of all inversions which may still serve as a model today. This basic pattern can generally be found in the most diverse ideologies, specifically in temptations by populist leaders, drug use, prostitution, and, quite unremarkable, in many everyday situations. 14`Ideology´ is a keyword in this publication for all inversive attitudes.
Those who seduce us offering a free bait so that we enthrone that which appears to be the Absolute, which will, however, eventually come to dominate us.
Thus, in the very beginning, before the inversion occurs, there is almost always a seductive idea of a strange positive Absolute – or a threat through a strange negative Absolute, too.
Can we not all of us relate to this story? Is not every one of us similar to Adam and Eve? Do we not all eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge every day, constructing ideologies which, for a short while, seem reasonable or beneficial to us but will, in the long term, prove harmful?
(See also Theodicy).
Even after psychoanalysis, situations of temptation and failure are very relevant.
It is not only the universal topics of humanity but also daily issues and worries such as illnesses, problems with our partners or children, success and failure, money or no money –
all these subjects may invade the absolute-sphere and therefore acquire existential relevance. Inversions may be quickly changed, or they may last for a lifetime like a mindset that may be found in societies or families for several generations.
The range of possible inversion is nearly unlimited. I shall systematize them in a later section.
The common denominator of all these behavior patterns (or rather, of their underlying attitudes) is the affected person’s subordination to a strange Absolute and their negation of that which is the actual Absolute.
Existential attitudes, opinions, and beliefs are generally “located” in the absolute sphere of the person. Concrete behaviors depend upon them and are therefore relative in comparison to them. Thus, it is not possible to draw completely safe conclusions from concrete behaviors about primary attitudes.
In association with that topic, I also want to draw focus on the difference of a relative and an absolutely taken personal trait: A relative one is relativized by a higher positive Absolute (A, God1)15Because I do not agree with some church ideas about God, I mark this separately. – an absolute not. Example: I can be scrupled, without it determining me.
On the distinction between inversion and sin, I would briefly like to say that inversion is more comprehensive than sin and the affected is often unaware of its presence. Sin is commonly understood with an act of conscious, free will, as a violation of the ten commandments.
It is possible to have inversions without sinning.
Objectively, sin, as well as inversion, are of relative importance; subjectively, however, they are frequently of absolute importance. Inversion is by no means the negative or even evil, rather something subordinate (second to penultimate), which often acts as an emergency solution despite all the disadvantages.
Freud’s concept of repression corresponds, in part, to the concept of inversion, provided the definition involves the replacement of that which is Absolute by that which is a Relative. According to the psychoanalytic conception, the repressed Absolute would then recede to the subconscious.
A more extensive discussion of differences between Freud´s theory of repression and my analysis can be found in the unabridged German version.
The absolutization of something / someone is always automatically accompanied by an absolutization of the polar opposite and a negation. This means that with each strange Absolute, the relevant contrary and adversary opposites emerge – often only existing latently. I call the complexes thus formed ‘It’, which will be discussed later (→ It). Every inversion may so lead to the genesis of its polar opposites, dilemmas, paradoxes.
(See e.g., Ambivalent and paradoxical reactions.)
The emergence of opposites also goes hand in hand with the emergence of fusions (mergers) and negation. Likewise, fusions generate opposites and negations as well as negations promoting opposites and fusions. (→ E.g., Interplay of opposing philosophies and forms of societies.) In my opinion, the literature of this theme (KW `dialectics’) looks only at the dynamics of opposites and not at the simultaneous emergence of fusions and negations.
a) Individual inversions: The inversions or ideologizations primarily arise in the absolute sphere of a person. Their effects can be found both in the spiritual and psychological sphere as well as in material and somatic spheres.
The material and somatic changes can be secondary causes for further changes. However, the primacy of spiritual causation cannot better be proved than the primacy of material causation.
b) Societal inversions: The inversions affect not only individuals but also groups or whole societies.
Here, they can be found, above all, as different ideologies or `Isms´, as well as in countless attitudes and convictions which evolve in small groups such as families. Globally, they are detected in social strata and societies, in successive generations, in the mainstream as much as in more marginal worldviews and ideologies.
In the following chapters, the character of ideologies, their `Its´ and effects will be described. These ideologies are not only negative and have positive sides but in the long term, they always prove more or less oppressive, require sacrifices, exclude others and are potentially pathogenic.
A Relative (R) becomes an Absolute (A) and an Absolute (A) becomes a Relative (R) or 0.
Both are connected and form an It.
In due to inversion R will grow more important than A, whereas A will become less important than R or turning into 0.
The graphics illustrate inversions, concerning different aspects of the dimensions involved. In essence, it is the same process that is portrayed in diverse ways. From left to right:
a) To the left, we can see how A loses its position in the center, whereas the Relative takes the former’s place in the center.
b) A Relative becomes dominant over the Absolute. In the sphere of a person: R becomes superior to P.
c) The Absolute is no longer regarded to be fundamental, whereas the Relative is regarded to be fundamental.
d) The Absolute is no longer thought to be first-rate but second-rate, whereas the Relative becomes first-rate.
e) The Absolute is no longer believed to be comprehensive, whereas the Relative is deemed to be comprehensive.
Everywhere there are “displacements” of the center and “breakages” between the first-rate starting point and the new strange situation.
Grammatical and syntactical analogies remind us of the hypothesis that aspects of psyche have to do by that which is represented in nouns, verbs and adjectives 16More precisely, it is, of course, only the words that are relevant to man. – i.e. “structures” (forms), “movement” and “qualities “; while psychical interconnections are expressed by syntax, by that which subjects and predicates represent.
One can examine the changes in the “structures” (forms), “movement”, “qualities” and interconnections are caused by the inversions.
Translating the steps previously mentioned into these linguistic analogies, one might say:
In a first step, a person, who is a primary subject, makes an object (the Relative) to a primary subject; thereby becoming himself an object. As an object the affected person can merely act as a secondary or second-rate subject (syntactic analysis).
Another analogy to grammar lies in the fact that the subject forces the object into a certain form by the aid of a verb as predicate. “The verb dominates the object.“ (W. Jung) 17W. Jung: Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, p 46.
The `Summary table´ essentially follows this classification. For a more detailed analysis, please see the unabridged German version.
How are Inversions Expressed? – Linguistic Analysis
Often, inversions are not immediately recognized in every-day life, particularly since they might appear in different forms and modes of expression. Inversions emerge from certain attitudes and are expressed in very diverse ways: in specific patterns of behavior, ways of thinking and speaking, etc. Most clearly, inversions express themselves in the language which is employed in communication. Since inversions invariably affect the absolute sphere, they can be revealed in the inadequate use of following absolute words or absolute statements, like:
• Absolute nouns (= being): God, devil, idol, saints and the sacred, or nominalized absolute adjectives.
• Absolute verbs of action (= actions, behavior) like: to adore, idolize, hate, swear, curse, dogmatize, ideologize, etc.
• Absolute auxiliary verbs e.g., (absolute) must, will (want to do), must not. 18Just look at how often people use the word ‘must’ without being forced.
• Absolute Adjectives: e.g.: absolute, by oneself, actual, categorical, primary, independent, total, surreal, irrelevant.
• Absolute adverbs (= circumstances)like: always, for ever, never, impossible, unbelievable, definitely not, in no way, obvious, entirely clear, first-rank, certainly, etc.
• Absolute prefixes and suffixes like: un-, -less, etc.
• Universal-statements = sentences that include absolute words, proverbs or universal statements.
I limit myself here in regard to the multiplicity of possible inversions to known ideologies. Besides, there are, as mentioned, countless other “private”, nameless, dogmatized attitudes. [Notes: ↔ means inversion.]
I will discuss aspects one by one:
Inversions of the dimensions, inversions of the differentiations and the units.
• a1) (Key aspect) Absolute and Relative are confused/mistaken (↔)
Relative (R) becomes strange Absolute (sA) and the actual Absolute (+A, ‒A and absolute attitude´) becomes nothing (0). Source: all ideologies, some worldviews.
• a2) The Self ↔ the other.
A strange other is seen as an actual Self, as actual identity, as identical to itself –
and the actual Self is seen as strange or irrelevant,
e.g., Determinism, operationalism, some philosophies of identity.
• a3) The actual ↔ the possible.
The possible, artificial, fake, surreal will be denoted as actual, real, etc. –
and the first-rate realities/ truths will be seen as irrelevant,
e.g., Realism, objectivism, positivism, antirealism, idealism, relativism, formalism.
(KW `The rule of the beautiful image´).
• a4) Uniform ↔ partial.
Parts are treated as a whole – and the whole as a part,
e.g., Monism, holism, universalism, integralism, totalitarianism, expansionism.
• a5) Unconditional ↔ conditional.
Conditional becomes unconditional and vice versa,
e.g., Dogmatism, determinism, fatalism, partly skepticism.
If one makes a main thing to incidental and a minor matter to the main thing. Further: radicalism, extremism.
• a6) First-rate ↔ second-rate.
Second-rate becomes first-rate and vice versa,
e.g., If one makes a main thing to a minor matter and a minor matter to the main thing.
Further: radicalism, extremism.
(KW `The rule of the second over the first´ or the `rule of the form over the content´).
•a7) Independent ↔ dependent.
Dependent things become autonomous – and the independent things are seen as dependent or irrelevant, e.g., Autopoiesis, evolutionism, philosophy of immanence.
• I. Being (spirit ↔ matter),
e.g., idealism, immaterialism, ontologism, spiritualism / materialism, naturalism, formalism, structuralism. KW `The rule of matter over the spirit´.
• II. Live ↔ function,
e.g., Hylozoism, dynamism, energetics, functionalism, partly philosophies of life, vitalism.
KW `The rule of functions and officials over the life´.
• III. Absolute ↔ relative qualities,
e.g., Perfectionism, positivism, idealism / negativism.
• IV. Subject ↔ object-/ connections.
Relative connections are treated like absolute connections and vice versa.
Objects are treated like subjects and vice versa,
e.g., subjectivism, objectivism, relationism, epiphenomenalism.
KW `The rule of objects over the subjects´.
• On 1. Everything ↔ something.
Something is seen as everything – and everything is seen as nothing.
• On 2. Transcendence (God, heaven, spirit) ↔ immanence (world, matter, partly humanity).
• On 3. people ↔ things.
Things are seen as people and vice versa. (KW `Rule of the things over the human´).
• On 4. IA ↔ IR and I ↔ others.
Others/people or the own I are absolutized – and the own or strange Absolute is being negated.
‘Ego’ as common term for an absolutized I. (KW `The rule of Ego over the I´).
• On 5. spirit ↔ soul, body of a person.
The human body (or parts of the body) or functions such as look, physical capability, or well-being are absolutized – and the actual Absolute spirit, such as the unconditional dignity of the person is relativized or negated.
Additional aspects such as ownership, morality, ability, etc: see unabridged German version.
Importance of Inversions for the Development of Mental Illnesses (Interim result)
I am convinced that inversions, besides the ‒A, are the most common and primary (!) cause for mental disorders.
On the other hand, the connection between inversions and mental disorders is never definite, because:
– Every inversion also has positive effects! Therefore, it is definitely not the bad or evil but more like an emergency solution.
– Also, the +A can have negative results/ consequences, comparable to the pain we have to bear at the dentist.
– The decisive factor for the pathogenesis of mental disorders is not some kind of mistake or confusion but that those are connected to the Absolute. Confusions of the Relative are ubiquitous. Everything ‘earthly’, our every-day-life, our communication, our way of thinking and our perception is more or less alienated, paradoxical, senseless, traumatizing etc without us getting ill automatically. Only if something becomes of absolute relevance, it dominates over us and if it is not compensated by something other, mental disorders may occur.
Note: Readers, who do not wish to go into the topic deeply, may skip this chapter and continue reading with the chapter ‘The personal It and the strange Self´.
In this chapter I will discuss in more detail the consequences of inversions.
From inversions of psychically relevant dimensions, a new entity can arise that dominates us and Inversions form new, strange realities and personal parts.
In the following I will call this new, strange entity ‘It’.
Thus inversions lead to the formation of something new, strange, which has materialized and become independent. A formation has emerged that represents the inversion of fundamental meanings and has inverting effects, too.
Something has emerged that has detached itself from its creator and is no longer his object but a new, strange, independent subject and develops its own effect on its own. In this subject role, it dominates us humans, which now become objects.
This ‘It’ has its own characteristics, which I will describe afterwards.
The term `it‘ denotes an unspecified cause of an occurrence.19Duden 1973, KZ 1148 W. Jung: “The pronoun (it) is only a formal, empty subject. [Wahrig: ‘seeming subject’] associated with … impersonal verbs … but also with verbs of physical or mental sensations, verbs of lack or need…”.20W. Jung, p. 337.
I distinguish between a small ‘it’ and a big ‘It’. The small ‘it’ is subjugated to the I-self.
The big ‘It’ that is at issue here dominates the Ego.
Therefore the term ‘It‘ is used here to describe an ‘it’ with absolute importance for a person.
It is created by inversion, which causes an ‘it’/’something’ to be absolutized and to become an It, which then dominates the I.
Then I do no longer own it but It owns me. Therefore, It is the cause for an event within a person, that the person cannot control or influence. In every-day language, we often use also the term It to describe that something (usually something unknown) controls us: “It kills me on the inside.”, “It makes me sick.”, “It confuses me.” and so on. Other than the term I, It also indicates indeterminacy and subconsciousness.
All these characteristics match very well to the ‘It’ described in this publication.
These Its play a special role in the emergence of mental disorders (see later).
• The It described by S. Freud applies to one of the three instances besides I and super-ego. 21Freud called the German `Es´ in Latin `Id´. The term `It’ used by me includes the Freudian Id but it is however much broader.
• G. Groddeck describes it in a similar way. He mentioned the important role of the It within our inner life in “Book of the It”, even before Freud did. 22Georg Groddeck, The Book of the It, Vision Press (1979 ed),
• Paul Auster: “What that ‘it’ referred to Quinn has never known. A generalized condition of things as they were, perhaps; the state of `it-ness´ that was the ground on which the happenings of the world took place.” (New-York Trilogy, p. 135).
• Georg Büchner in ‘Danton’s Death’: “What is it in us, that lies, steals and murders? We are puppets and unknown powers pull the strings; … we are not ourselves!” (Act 2, Scene 5).
• Thomas Wolfe wrote about “… that something that lived and wove in the dark, while the people slept, which happened secretly, rejoicing and victorious all over the country …”.23In `Death, the Proud Brother´
• A. J. Cronin: “The stuff is in my body. It’s myself… I am the it itself.”24In: `The Adventure of a Black Bag´
• In the book LTI, Victor Klemperer describes the language of the Third Reich. I believe that one can view the language and spirit of the Third Reich as equal to the language and spirit of the It. His description of a Nazi-march in LTI is an example of two typical characteristics of the It: hyper-identity and juxtaposition of lifelessness and ‘hyper-vitality’. 25Klemperer about language in general: “Language writes and thinks not only for me, it also distracts my feeling, it controls my entire spiritual being …” (p.24)
• The features that Stefan Zweig gives the ‘daemon’ in his book ‘The Struggle with the Daemon’ essentially correspond to an ‘It’.
• It is typical, that also a horror film by Stephen King is called ‘It’.
It = a strange dominating subject. More precisely:
It = special entity, originated by inversions, which became independent and dominates and changes WPI. 26WPI = world, person and I.
It is a complicated formation with the most varied of effects.
It is a fundamental basis for mental disorders.
However, the It is not “the evil” or solely negative because it also contains positive sides, which are very important for its persistence and penetrance.
It is – along with many other characteristics – strange and divided.
An It consists of three parts: a pro-sA , a contra-sA, and s0-part 271. Synonym used: pro = +, contra = ‒. 2. sA = strange Absolute. 3. I also count to the pro-sA the asA = absolutistic sA (also hyper-A); To contra-sA, I also count the rsA = relativistic sA (= strange relativistic one), which I will discuss later. (‘triad’), although it may also appear as a one-part or two- part (“monad” or “dyad”)
Why does an It always consist of three parts?
In other words, why does an inversion always create three opposites?
Example: I idealize one matter (+ absolutization). This matter, however, as a Relative, has apart from the absolutized positive, also a negative and a negated side. These two sides are also absolutized (‒ and 0 absolutization).
At the beginning of absolutization, the It often appears one-sided / one-part (like a ‘monad’), later often ambiguous / bipartite (like a ‘dyad’), although in reality it has three parts. Rarely do you experience the It with all three parts as `triad’ because mostly one part dominates. In one part, like a monad, the It appears when one of its parts (pro, + part, contra, – part or 0 part) is absolutized and the other two are repressed or displaced. For example, if I absolutize my strength, then I must negate my weaknesses and everything else that contradicts strength. But the repressed or negated parts remain latent.
Bipartite (like a ‘dyad’) one experiences the It when two of its parts are simultaneously “activated”, e.g., everything and nothing, pro and contra, pro and nothing, contra and nothing.
In this way, the It has many opposites, depending on which part dominates.
(I will explain these processes in more detail later.)
The various parts of the It, on the one hand opposing each other but are interdependent on the other.
The terms `dyad´ and` triad´ seem to describe well what is meant here. One could designate the It as a ‘dyad’ as a ‘WPI-determining binary or dual unit’ (1 and 0) and interpret the increasing digitization as an attempt to divide the world and people into as many 1s and 0s (‘It-parts’) which threatens to dominate us despite all progress and even tries to digitize psyche and spirit. The ‘triad’ also has a parallel in data processing in the form of ‘trinary’ encryption, which allows the states 0, 1 and -1.
For example, regarding aspect a4: The It is the dominant inverted, the too divided (± all or nothing) and the too fused. And this is how it works: inverting (reversing), splitting and fusing.
In this way, the It acts in all WPI areas: it makes inversions (reversals), divisions (opposites) and mergers (the same) with realities, people and with the ego.
In the absolute area, prevail other laws and characteristics as in the relative area.
If something Relative has penetrated into the absolute sphere and is taken absolutely, although it is not an absolute, then a very peculiar structure arises, a hermaphrodite, a strange, which is inherent but not identical with the actual being that has its own characteristics and dynamics, which partly agree with those of the actual being but partly oppose them.
The greater the distance between a sA and the +A, the smaller the accordance.
The It has strange characteristics, esp. those of a material strange absolute, strange Self. As such, it is no longer primarily the actual spiritual and the living but, above all, strange material or thing and functional. The materialization also means that it is no longer directly available and changeable but only to change in the long term through new attitudes.
Detailed representation of the character of the It see in Summary table, column H.
That is also, the more the It is removed from the influence of the +A, the less are the laws of life or the living spirit but mechanical or physical laws, since now it is less about spirit but about materialized being and its functions. In parallel, chaos arises.
The It are like parasites also, that became part of the host organism (WPI), although they still remain strange and dominant; Although both, the parasites and the host organism, entered into a dependency in which both have advantages and disadvantages, it is more beneficial for the parasites (the It) and contains some kind of danger for the host (e.g., to become ill). 28No wonder we become confused or even paranoid when we are “infested” by them.
The It creates and binds its own Relatives and forms with them a separate unit (like nucleus and cytoplasm of the cell).
The It tries to expand itself and to dominate or subjugate itself under others Its.
The It forms Co- or Contra- or 0-forms, which act similar or in opposition to the primary forms.
The It forms bigger complexes and second-rate units, systems, personalities – all of which together form second-rate realities/ worlds.
Possible synonyms for the It in general:
Dyad, triad, parasite, symbiont, paper tiger, chimera, delusion, fool’s paradise, phantom, figment of imagination, bastard, miscarriage, new strange, self-deceit. Symbol of It in equilibrium: ☯.
Ideologies as examples for the collective It
Ideologies (`Ism´) are dogmatized worldviews, which means that they are determined by strange Absolutes. Ideologies, as collective Its they are main representatives of the It.
The person as the cause of such ideologies becomes the last authority. As mentioned I see in ideologies (“official” like “private”) essential causes for mental disorders.
Systematized I have listed them in the Summary table , column E. See also `Which Its correspond to which ideologies´.
I repeat: The absolutization of a Relative or the negation of an actual Absolute can be the beginning of the emergence of the It. It does not matter, whether it started with a break-in of the Relative into the absolute-sphere, which caused a loss of A, or if it started with a negation of an A, which enabled the R to break into that “empty space” of the absolute-sphere. The absolutized R and the negated A act as sA and s0 and create their own dimensions and differentiations and together they create a new, strange instance: the It. As said, the It differentiates and dimensionates itself by the (+ or ‒) all-or-nothing principle. The new strange Absolutes (resp. `All´) and 0 become the centers of new, strange personal or impersonal realities/worlds, which they dominate. The inversions are like acts of creation that enable to establish a variety of new strange worlds/realities. These second-rate realities have their own characteristics and rules that we want to get to know better in the following paragraphs. They live or die depending on their centers – the It. Although these processes are very complex and run side-by-side in many spheres, I have to divide them into separate steps for the sake of comprehension before I present an overall view. The different steps should be understandable when remembering the hypotheses, that every reality is AR dimensioned and BLQC differentiated.
In the following section, the emergence of all possible It-parts and their sides will be presented. At first, I will discuss the emergence of a two-part It (dyad) to then discuss the emergence of a three-part It (triad) an finally their different sides.
Depending on the kind of inversion, the It may appear as dyadic It (all or nothing),
or as triadic It (pro-sA , contra-sA and 0 or asA, rsA and 0).
In the following paragraph I will describe how inversions originate a dyad (`dyadic/ binary It´) in the form of `All and Nothing´. These two parts of the It are created by the basic mechanism of the inversion: By totalization and by negation = all-or-nothing mechanism. The following illustration will make it easier to understand that process.
The graphic shows the emergence of new dimensions of the It, referring to the all-or-nothing concept: From an absolutized Relative¹ or totalized All¹ emerge strange All² – and a negated All¹ and something Relative¹ become strange Nothing (0).
The underlying inversion is illustrated by using gray color.
This all-or-nothing is a main characteristic of any It. Both parts of the dyad are connected with each other closely. They are basically two sides of the same thing, of the It. Although they are as if they were welded together, they are also separated from each other and stand on opposite sides. They are friends and enemies at the same time. They depend on each other and destroy each other. However, they coincide in their shared opposition against the first-rate AR resp. reality¹.
There are no nuances in the all-or-nothing.
Because the ‘all’ (∀) is either a positive or a negative strange Absolute (+sA or ‒sA), I deal with the emergence of these two sides of the ‘all’ there in the next section. But because on the other hand in the comparison to ‘nothing’ the term ‘all’ is common, I use it in this sense (`all or nothing´).
All/ Everything abbreviations: (∀) , All² (or only All).
On the Genesis of the nothingness see later.
Genesis of the Strange Absolute (sA)
“The Egyptians created Gods out of the things they were scared of,
and out of the things they wished for.“ Egyptian tour guide.
Synonyms for sA: Pseudoabsolute, secondary, substitutive, strange Absolutes/ dominations, part of a triad, partly as obsessions, fixations. [Similar to Freud’s concept of fixation].
Sergi Avaliani comes to a very similar conclusion as I do concerning the Pseudoabsolute from a philosophical point of view:
“Since human knowledge is relative, human beings consciously (or often unconsciously) dismiss the relative by creating the absolute. The absolute thus created is the Pseudoabsolute which, by virtue of its human origins, is relative. … The Pseudoabsolute is a dialectical unity of the absolute and relative and, as a `third reality,´ plays a great role in the spiritual life of humankind.”29Sergi Avaliani: The Philosophy of Pseudoabsolute (World Philosophy) Nova Science Publishers Inc, 2018.
Strange Absolutes (sA) are being developed if Relatives are taken as absolutely.
Everything that is relative can be absolutized.
That applies to things, people and especially experiences in childhood. Those experiences may seem to be positive in the sense of temptations, negative in the sense of traumatizations, or the third main-group, which is negation of the child or its existential needs. Then, those people were not able to build basic trust as a child. Something else happened instead: Trust in something, that is really only of relative worth, too much mistrust towards a relative negative, or no trust at all. At a certain point it does not matter anymore if something is absolutized positively or negatively. They are two sides of the same medal, as contrary as they might appear. Here the French saying “Les extrêmes se touchent.” – “The opposites are touching each other.”
In the common western society as an achievement-orientated society, deeds and successes (asp. 15) are probably absolutized the most. Also, sexuality (asp. 6), ownership (asp. 9), other people as role models (asp. 3) and some other aspects are playing a big role in our society. The church is probably most endangered to absolutize morality or itself as an institution (asp. 12 and 3). The rationalism absolutizes mind (asp. 16) and the romantic absolutizes emotions (asp. 7) etc. It is also about certain, nameless attitudes, that are dominant and internalized in families. Internalized I will call them strange Selves. Many absolutizations or “craziness” in society or families are viewed as the right conducts of life and are therefore being encouraged. They are an important cause of mental disorders.
I agree with M. Siirala, who talks about direct relations between schizophrenia of the individual and `schizophrenia´ of the generality. I will also try to create here connections between the different familiar and social ideologies and their inversions on the one side, and the different illnesses of the individual on the other side.
Kinds of the sA: +sA (= pro-sA ), ‒sA (= contra-sA); asA and rsA. With nothingness, they are parts of a triad. Symbol of sA: Yin-Yang ☯.
Too much of a good thing* is a bad thing (Saying)30It’s just as bad when you absolutely have to do the good!
Synonyms: False Gods, ideals, love-objects, ‘drugs’, glorified objects, wrong centering etc.
As strange Absolutes they represent: strange or substitute sense, strange or substitute identity, -truth, -reality, -unity, -safety, -reason, -autonomy and -freedom. Compared to the +A, the +sA appear more fascinating, more direct, more provable, more touchable.
Emergence: Something Relative is viewed as absolutely positive/right, without being it. 31+ sA does not mean that the person concerned always feels the corresponding + sA as beneficial, such as duty * – but as for him correct.
Typical examples for +sA are: Money, power, health, youth, sex, achievement, performance, the relative good and right, morality, fidelity, knowledge, wisdom, control, the human itself, 32Elsewhere I have pointed out and discussed the peculiarity of man that he owns an Absolute. especially idealized people, the own person, “saints” or other earthly matters. 33The positive misabsolutization is always a partial denial of the actual reality because its negative parts are omitted!
The graphic illustrates, how a part of the absolute-area is being conquered by a relative positive.
Therefore that absolutized area adapts to the characteristics of the strange positive Absolute.The affected now defines him-/herself by the absolutized ideal and therefore gives up his/her own first-rate definition and identity! Because the established ideals and their increased requirements cannot be fulfilled in the long run therefore they start to promote their opposites. (See I. Kant: basic virtue is a good will. If that is missing, the other virtues may also become evil and dangerous.) 34Kant: `Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten´35, Anaconda Verlag 2008 (Wikipedia, 2012). resp.https://genius.com/Immanuel-kant-groundwork-of-the-metaphysics-of-morals-chap-i-annotated|
The +sA becomes the most important in two different ways: it becomes the best (subjective) and the most expensive (objective). The +sA does not only imitate the +A but exceeds it in its positive effects. Compared to the +A, the +sA impresses more fascinating, better, more direct, more tangible, more provable, etc. in the short term. This makes them particularly seductive. However, this hyper-positive effect is connected with greater disadvantages occurring above all later. Thus morality becomes moralism, search for truth leads to bossiness, autonomy to self-importance, humanism becomes one-sided altruism or hard-heartedness, reconciliation and peace must then be achieved at any price – even at the price of self-sacrifice.
Synonyms: false friends, false objects of hate, false deadly sins, false demonization.
Emergence: Relatives, that are taken absolutely negative as absolutely bad/evil. Typical examples: immorality, fault, illness, weakness, inferiority, impotence, failure, sorrow, death, conflicts, problems, aggression, the evil, 36I.e.every evil except the −A. loneliness, traumas, certain people.
‒sA are also often recognizable when using “I definitely cannot…”. For example: “I cannot be angry!”,
“I definitely cannot become like my dad!”.
The graphic illustrates how a relative negative breaks into the absolute-area (or how a lack in the absolute-area is being replaced by the relative negative). With that absolutization, it gains the characteristics of an strange negative Absolute.
Whenever a positive Relative is absolutized positively, the impacts will be much lower, than if a positive Relative is absolutized negatively or a negative Relative is absolutized positively.
Also see: Ambivalent, paradoxical behavior, Inverted, paradoxical world
+sA and ‒sA depend on each other and exclude each other at the same time. They fight each other or promote each other. (“Evil never thrives better than when an ideal precedes it.” Karl Kraus). They are opposites and nevertheless the same. Like a reflection in a mirror, where the opposites are however the same. The devil is then only a co-player of the false God in the same game. The phrases “Les extrêmes se touchent” (The opposites are touching”) or: “The extremes are equal”, “Extremes are often together”, “The extraordinary is equal” and so on, express the same statement.
Every It carries potentially its own enemy and its nothing in itself , and is so doomed to fail in the long run.
Those who stick on their lives are more likely to lose it than those who live it calmly with God.
(Free according to Mt 10:39).
Because in our time many people no longer believe in God and eternal life, earthly life and death are absolutized. Earthly life is then the most important positive sA and accordingly death is the worst sA and one could also understand all other sA as a consequence of these absolutizations. One would have to speak exactly of (second-rate) death² and life², because in my opinion it is not about real death and real life, but about absolutizing earthly forms of existence. Both condition each other: the greater our greed for life, the greater our fear of death. And the greater our fear of death, the greater our greed for life.
But also from a certain point you find the opposite (→Reversal into the opposite): the greater our fear of death, the sooner we want to die. And the more we live greedily, the less fear we have before death because we then repress it. (All possibilities can also coexist at the same time.)
This possibility that death and life can mutually reinforce, although they are completely opposite, is a characteristic of their second-rate reality. For me, this possibility is also a sign that this is not the last issue. Only complete death (after Rev. 20: 6, the “second death”) and eternal life are completely incompatible and mutually exclusive.
The following graphic illustrates the creation of asA and rsA more detailed.
This graphic illustrates the emergence of asA and rsA. The Absolute without the Relative becomes absolutistic (= hyper-absolute) asA -and many or all absolutized Relatives become relativistic (= hyper-relative) rsA. There is a contrary opposition between asA and rsA.
• asA = the absolutistic sA is a strange Absolute, that is without or totally separated from any Relative.
(In contrast to that, the actual A ‘surrounds’ the Relative). The asA are superelevated, distant conceptions of God, or idealized humans (idols, rulers), that have no connection to reality.
• rsA = relativistic sA = the totalized Relative. That refers to the point of view of relativism, that everything is only relative and that there is no absolute truth. That means, that we are not dealing with a single (or a few) strange Absolutes (as with pro- and contra-sA) but we are facing a variety of Relatives, that determine WPI.
Examples for rsA:
– The every-day life (or whatever is relevant at this situation) dominates P.
– The present media world with its excessive distractions.
– The digital era if it creates a digital world without a superior Absolute.
1. Although the asA and rsA are special absolutizations, they are principally not different from the other sA, so that I subsume them there.
2. The asA and rsA are described and differentiated more detailed in the unabridged version.
In itself, the `absolute attitude´ is absolutely free in the choice of + A or ‒A. However, when relative choices are absolutized, strange ‘choice absolutes’ are created.
See also `The absolute attitude of the I´.
Synonyms: Zero, nothing, vacuum, emptiness, deficiency.
Shortcuts: s0, 0² or mostly 0.
I have already mentioned, that parallel to the absolutization of a Relative, there will be a negation of actual A., As a result, a defect in the absolute-sphere, an empty space, a nothingness emerges. That nothingness itself is not actual but a second-rate (²), a pseudo-nothingness but something that will be experienced as total nothingness. It has three sides: a positive, a negative, and an own, empty side, that will be discussed below.
With the choice of the nothingness, a person also chooses the opposite strange All or sA. 37Example Faust to Mephisto: ” In your Nothingness, I hope, the All I will recover.” (Faust’s second part, Act 1)
Therefore, negation creates contradicting opposites. 38The vulnerability-stress model (which for the purposes of this paper describes the impact of adverse sA) would complement the one hand by a availability-seduction model (the impact of positive sA group) and on the other by a quasi negationability-negation-model (which indicates the impact of s0).
Negation means: A is negated, ignored, superfluous, deselected, not considered, repressed, excluded etc.
Personally, that usually means the negation/ devaluation of a person´s actual Self.
What are the Absolutes, that are negated?
= the three actual A: +A , ‒A and the personal `absolute attitude´.
• Negation of +A:
What is +A? Believable assurances to a person, such as formulated by religion, human rights, or love. (Here categorized by the 7 aspects of dimension). 39Exactly one would have denote the following “+A” as “Also+A”, for only God alone is the real, primary or absolute + A – if you wanted here at all “define”.
1 – The unconditional love of God1, i.e. every person is loved by God1 for its own sake.
2 – The unconditional personal identity, the Self.
3 – The uniqueness of a person.
4 – The integrity of a person.
5 – The unconditional right to exist of a person.
6 – The unconditional dignity of a person.
7 – The right to self-determination of a person. 40Absolute promises are not: health, material possessions, success, etc. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
The person leaves his/her inner paradise an inverts him-/herself if he rejects such absolute assurances. One could also say: Inversion also happens, when a person does not believe to be unique, unconditionally loveable, equal, free, etc.
• Negation of ‒A
Attention to the negation of the -A¹ is also important because by its negation another negative, which in itself is only relative, takes its place and gains absolute significance for us. That means, that something that only worries us in a relative way and only appears to be a relative problem, becomes unbearable and seems to be insoluble. Now, the person is scared of something, that is really not fearsome at all.
• Negation of the `absolute attitude´:
As said: In itself, the `absolute attitude´ is absolutely free in the choice of + A or ‒A.
Ideologies, however, either negate this choice (“man has no free will”) or over-expand it (“man is completely free”).
• Example: + / ‒/ 0
Concerning the quality, every Relative is only more or less positive, negative or neutral.
In the case of an absolutization that changes: the fluent transitions of more or less positive and negative (good and bad) are polarized and totally disconnected. Now, certain things or people are categorized as `absolutely good´, `absolutely evil´, `black or white´ or similar, although they are not. The affected experiences specific relative things in an absolutely good or bad (…) way or that was taught to him/her that way in the past. Because of that, he/she now only sees the world/ the things that (extreme) way. Like looking at it with a magnifying glass, everything seems to be bigger/ more extreme than it actually is. There is nothing (0) between these opposites.
It is important to say, that this person often has certain advantages first and mainly disadvantages later on.
The graphic shows how something Relative changes after an inversion. It is polarized, compressed and finally divided into +sA, ‒sA and 0. The original unit is basically torn into the different, opposite parts. On the other hand, those parts are connected with each other very closely. (Symbol on the right)
• Example: strength/ weakness
This illustration shows how an inversion creates by absolutizing of Relatives certain It-parts: a pro-sA out of strength, a contra-sA out of weakness and a nothingness (0) out of others (and out of through the absolutization negated Relatives itself). The following differentiation can be made then: A first part, that I will call pro-sA , here strength*, a contrary opposite part, which is the contra-sA, here weakness* and a contradictory opposite part, the zero-part (s0), the nothingness.*41The * should make the absolutization clear again.
I want to explain the origin of the three It-parts by means of this example: (partly repetition). Two Relatives, here ‘strength’ and ‘weakness’ are relative opposites. We can see, that both terms (or their meaning) are not separated sharply of each other but into each other go over. The curve of the `strength´ reaches in the area of the `weakness´ and vice versa. That means both terms are not representing anything absolute. Neither the strength is absolute, otherwise, it would be almighty, nor the weakness is absolute, otherwise, it would be impotent. Instead, strength contains some of the weakness and weakness contains some of the strength. Strength and weakness, therefore, create a polar couple. They are on opposite sides but do not exclude each other. They are part of something bigger, something whole (+A). They are part of that bigger unit, without being identical. Besides them, there is something other with that they are also connected. It is not called strength nor weakness but they are also a part of it, without losing its own identity. Strength and weakness have a relative relation to this other, just like they have a relative relation with themselves. How is that situation changed due to an inversion?
Strength is not understood as relative but as absolute, as almighty. Weakness is seen as powerlessness that has to be avoided (‒sA contrary to +sA). That also means, that this absolutized strength (strength*) excludes weakness or anything similar – such as other absolutized parts exclude their opposites. With that, the opponents are not only relative opposites but absolute opposites now . There is now a contrary and a contradictory opposite for every part. However, they also depend on each other and are strongly connected to each other, too.
So far, we established how inversion can create three parts (`triad´).
Now the hypothesis is, that each of these three parts also has three sides.
How can these originate? Explaining the emergence of the three parts of the It, we assumed that every Relative in W¹ has a relative opposite, that is also absolutized if an absolutization takes place. (Besides that, a nothingness is created).
Parallel in addition, I assume that in W¹ not only every Relative faces to another Relative but that every Relative also has his relative opposite (and other) in itself. Put in other words: One Relative contains above all what the term calls, besides, however, also its relative opposites. I.e. one can recognize by a Relative in W¹ on the one hand one side (the main side), which the term calls, besides however, also two „sub-sides“: one, that represents its relative opposite and one that represents others. Now in the case of the absolutization not only the main side become absolutized but also the sub-sides. Every part, Pro-sA, the Contra-sA and 0 get thereby beside his main side two absolutized reverse sides (which are mostly suppressed).
Using the example of absolutization of strength and weakness, this illustration shows how the three sides of each It-part are formed. Since strength usually also `contains´ some weakness, the inversion causes that side to be absolutized as well and represents a negative side of the pro-sA ‘strength’. Finally, strength does contain not only some weakness but also something else (others), which becomes 0-side of the pro-sA . The same applies to the two other parts, contra-sA and 0. The * should emphasize again that these are absolutizations.
Examples of different sA with their 3 sides:
• The 3 sides of the + *
1. The main side of the + *: e.g., correct decisions / successes / strength … are great.
2. The negative side of the + *: e.g., agony of choice, pressure to succeed.
Or Goethe: “Nothing is more difficult to bear than a number of good days.”
Also: the more + * the higher the drop height.
3. The 0-side of the + *: e.g., the + I do not care, resignation etc.
• The 3 sides of the ‒ *
1. The main side of the ‒ *: e.g., poverty, war, murder, immorality, illness … are bad.
2. The positive side of the ‒ *: e.g., morbid gain, ↓”fall height”, emergency lie, sweet
sin, tyrant murder.
3. The 0-side of the ‒ *: e.g., the ‒ I do not care, repression.
• The 3 sides of the Nothing²
1. The main page of nothingness: e.g., strange emptiness, nothing.
2. The positive side of nothingness: e.g.,
Nirvana, belle indifference, the advantage of repression. If I have nothing, I
cannot lose anything. 42R.M. Rilke: “And we, animals of the soul, confused by everything in us, not yet ready for nothing; we grazing souls: do we not implore the Allotter by night to grant us the not-face which belongs with our darkness?“ Das Karussell, Reclam, p24. Translated in: http://hilobrow.com/2011/11/23/early-60s-horror-4/
It is easier to dispense completely with everything than half.
3. The negative side of nothingness: e.g.,
horror vacui, one is burned out, desolate, abandoned, lost, left
The nothing stares at a desolate one from empty eyes (caves).
Death, hell – the great nothingness? J.P. Sartre: “Behind closed doors”.
The contrary main and reverse sides correspond to paradoxes (About the emergence of paradoxes).
Each It can have 9 Different Connotations
The graphic shows how each It can look different depending on which of the 9 sides dominates.
Example: It represents any x *
if its + side dominates: x * is great
if its ‒ side dominates: x * is exhausting
if its 0 side dominates: x * does not matter, (has become) worthless.
if its ‒ side dominates: x * is bad
if its + side dominates: x * is liberating
if its 0 side dominates: x * is suppressed
if its 0 side dominates: x * is nothing
if its ‒ side dominates: x * was lost
if its + side dominates: P has nothing more to lose.
• Every It, even an opposite one, can generate all of these 9 basic patterns (although different in structure and content depending on the It). (See also `Spreading and compression´).
• The change from one part or side to another occurs abruptly and not fluidly (similar to the quantum leap of an electron).
• If one is looking for interpretations for a phenomenon, then this triad model is well suited.
Example: If I feel good, then this well-being can come from a pro, contra or 0 part. E.g. I feel good because I was moral (+ from the pro part) or because the immorality was seductive (+ from the contra part) or I experience it as liberating to place myself beyond morality or immorality (+ from the 0 part ).
This also means that every event (such as a symptom) can come from every It, but also from + or ‒A (which I will come back to) – but with a diverse probability.
The sides with the same connotations form groups/ pacts even if they come from different parts or Its, but because of their backsides they are enemies. So superficial love² can quickly turn into hate or vice versa. (More on that later).
The It as a Nine-Sided Triad-model explains many contradictions
The model of the It as a triad can explain contradicting phenomena well:
• Contradicting causes can have the same effects and similar causes can have completely contradicting effects.
And vice versa: The same effects (e.g. symptoms) can have similar but also different causes. And different effects (e.g. symptoms) can have different but also similar causes.
This also means that every event (such as a symptom) can come from any It (but also from + or ‒A).
• With regard to the sides, this also means: Each of these sides can come from any of the main parts.
As said before, the It is like a chameleon: it can appear and act as monade, dyad or triad. And the appearance depends on which of the sides of the different It-parts dominate.
In comparison to +A¹ and ‒A¹, that are not divided and have no backsides. Therefore, the characteristics and dynamics in W² are very different from W¹.
• The transformation of the It into its opposites – such as the behavior or feeling of a person, which is dominated by an It, can suddenly and unexpectedly change into its opposite.
(See also Reversal into the opposite)
• The model explains how people (or WPI as a whole) who interact with one another are first best friends, but then, mostly surprisingly and unexpectedly, can become enemies or completely indifferent to one another. (→ Possibilities of Interactions)
• The model explains how paradoxes can arise. (See also `Most important links regarding opposites´).
In comparison to +A¹ and ‒A¹, that are not divided and have no backsides, the Its present themselves as centers of second-rate realities, divided into two sides (all-or-nothing) or three sides (pro-, contra- and zero-part) which also have backsides. Therefore, the characteristics and dynamics in W² are very different from W¹. 431. Strictly speaking, the `all´ is also divided in pro and contra – but appears as a counterpart of nothing first in one piece.
2. This also means that there are three main interpretations and nine specific interpretations of any W²-situation.
• Considering the orientation of valences the following differentiation can be made:
1. The opposites („hostilities”)
a) contrary opposites
b) contradictory opposites
2. The `pacts´ / fusions
3. The `nothings´ (nothingnesses)
• Considering the localization of the valences:
1. Inner powers / valences inside the It.
2. Power / valences of the It to the outside.
• Opposite It with opposing world, people and I (WPI).
• Mergers, fusions, pacts with corresponding WPI.
Opposing It (fig. left) or It with similar Co-forms (fig. right) or negations can,
like their `carrier´ (WPI,
a. fight each other or
b. make pacts / reinforce / merge with
c. neutralize, dissolve each other or
d. turn into their opposite
– depending on which of their sides are “activated”!
In terms of the consequences, this means that new opposites or pacts or negations may have arisen from opposing or too similar or dissolving dynamics.
This illustration presents how two (or more) Its interact with each other, using their different sides comparable with gear-wheels. The pro-sA -part of the It is illustrated without a pattern, the contra-part is gray and the zero-part is illustrated with dots.
They agree in the fight against W¹. As soon as another enemy is in sight, they create a pact. As soon as the enemy is defeated, they ruin their own fellow campaigners. That already shows fundamental characteristics of disorders in society and also within an individual.
Here, it is about pr opposites and their general dynamics of the It, world, people and the I or their parts.
• An absolute opposite: between +A and ‒A.
• Relative ‘opposites’ (= polarities) between different Relatives.
• Strange absolute opposites (that’s what it’s all about here):
contrary opposites between Pro/+sA and Contra/‒sA,
contradictory opposites between All and nothing resp. the ±sA and nothing.
I use Pro and + as well as Contra and ‒ synonymously; * indicates the absolutization.
For Pro/+ you can use: idol, ideal*, love*, luck*, etc. For Contra/‒sA you can use: `devil’, taboo*, hate*, etc.,
Yin-Yang ☯ is a symbol of the It opposites in balance.
In parallel one can distinguish: An absolute connection between the + A / God1 and the person with a + absolute attitude.
Further: relative and strange absolute connections as fetters → fusions.
I mentioned: If a Relative is absolutized, its opposite is absolutized as well. One extreme gives birth to another extreme, and so on. I.e. with the strange `All´ we also choose the strange `nothingness ‘. With the strange positive Absolute (resp. pro-sA) we also choose the strange negative Absolute (resp. pro-sA) and vice versa; and the strange ‘nothingness’ with them. Thus every uncorrected inversion creates a dyad (all-or-nothing) or a triad (Pro-sA, Contra-sA and 0). In other words: a false God gives birth to a devil and vice versa, an ideal* creates a taboo* and vice versa, love* creates hatred* and ever nothingness too etc.
The It is defined by the fact, that the mentioned parts are contradicting and too similar at the same time. The parts are facing each other like a reflection in a mirror. They are like contrary twins (dyad) or triplets (triad). (Similarly ‘Oxymora‘ as a rhetorical device.)
An It-part excludes the others but at the same time it includes/ binds or negates them. That´s why one finds, that opposites attract, or fight or negate each other. And the same with fusions and negations. One can also say that opposites are never only contrary but also the same. Similarly, pacts also contain opposites and both negations (0). Second-rate realities and personal parts are at the same time too contrary (contradictory) as too equal and too null.
In everyday language opposites are known in the form of the expressions “black or white” or “friend or enemy”.
The mentioned statement that the extremes are touching themselves (“Les extrêmes se touchent”) marks also the situation very well, they are extremely apart from each other as well as they are chained at the same time. A picture and its reflection also represent the double-character of such pro- and contra-forms. One may say: Nothing is as similar and as dissimilar at the same time as its reflection.
Depending on the situation, any of the three It-parts can be dominant. That means that the It can be very different, contradicting and crazy but also uniform and neutral. It seems to be them same at first, then the opposite to finally disappear in the nothingness.
• An absolute opposite: between +A and ‒A.
• Relative ‘opposites’ (= polarities) between different Relatives.
• Strange absolute opposites (that’s what it’s all about here):
contrary opposites between Pro/+sA and Contra/‒sA,
contradictory opposites between All and nothing resp. sA and nothing.
I use Pro and + as well as Contra and ‒ synonymously; * indicates the absolutization.
For Pro/+ you can use: idol, ideal*, love*, luck*, etc. For Contra/‒sA you can use: `devil’, taboo*, hate*, etc. Yin-Yang ☯ is a symbol of the It-opposites in balance.
I mentioned: If a Relative is absolutized, its opposite is absolutized as well. I.e. with the strange `All´ we also choose the strange `nothingness ‘. With the strange positive Absolute (resp. pro-sA) we also choose the strange negative Absolute (resp. contra-sA) and vice versa; and the strange ‘nothingness’ with them. Thus every uncorrected inversion creates a dyad (all-or-nothing) or a triad (pro-sA, contra-sA and 0). In other words: a false God gives birth to a devil and vice versa, an ideal* creates a taboo* and vice versa, love* creates hatred* and ever nothingness too, etc.
The It is defined by the fact, that the mentioned parts are contradicting and too similar at the same time. The parts are facing each other like a reflection in a mirror. They are like contrary twins (dyad) or triplets (triad).
An It excludes the others but at the same time, it includes/ binds or negates them. That´s why one finds, that opposites attract, or fight or negate each other. And the same with fusions and negations. One can also say that opposites are never only contrary but also the same. Similarly, pacts also contain opposites and both negations (0). Second-rate realities and personal parts are at the same time too contrary (contradictory) as too equal and too null.
The mentioned statement that the extremes are touching themselves (“Les extrêmes se touchent”) marks also the situation very well, they are extremely apart from each other as well as they are chained at the same time. A picture and its reflection also represent the double-character of such pro- and contra-forms. One may say: Nothing is as similar and as dissimilar at the same time as its reflection.
Depending on the situation, any of the three It-parts can be dominant. That means that the It can be very different, contradicting and crazy but also uniform and neutral. It seems to be the same at first, then the opposite to finally disappear in the nothingness.
As I said, the opposite can
a. fight each other or
b. make pacts / reinforce / merge with each other or
c. neutralize, dissolve each other or
d. also turn into the opposite
– depending on which of their sides are “activated”! (See graphic above).
Main links regarding opposites in this publication:
Complex personal dynamics and relationship disorders
About the emergence of paradoxes
Ambivalent, paradoxical behavior
The opposites in the realities
Reversal into the opposite
Inverted, paradoxical world
Opposites in Schizophrenia and their Dynamics
Solution (of opposites).
I cannot go into more detail here about dialectics as the philosophical doctrine of opposites. There is an extensive literature.
As far as I know these, the discussions are almost only about the dynamics of pseudo-absolute opposites (in the sense of sA).Analogies in physics and cybernetics
• Physics: “For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.”
(Newton: 3rd mechanical law).
One could also interpret nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and radioactivity (decay) as special dynamics of second-rate realities.
• Color generates a complementary color.
• The pursuit of balance, KW self-regulation and feedback.
(For details see unabridged version).
In W¹ there is only one absolute opposite: The opposite between +A and ‒A. All the other opposites in W¹ are only relative. Therefore, it makes sense, to talk only about differences or polarities when it comes to those spheres. There are R¹ that are polar opposites of another R¹ and are therefore representing relative opposites. Both of them create certain opposites-pairs or antipole-pairs, that could also be named “dipoles”, or “tripoles”. In W¹, the relative single parts are permeated and embraced by +A. They show fluent passages and no harsh limits. Here is variety and no homogeneity. You could also say: Since no R¹ is absolutely limited from another one, they are all connected to each other (through the +A). Every part contains some of the other parts as well. Humans, however, have to put the different parts into words to communicate with each other. Those words are separate from each other. They indicate the specific irrelevant pole of the meaning of something, without mentioning all the other meanings along with it.
Whenever we describe an opposite or difference in our every-day language, it usually does not indicate whether it is a relative or an absolute opposite – unless it is specifically expressed. However, for the understanding of our topic, that difference (relative, absolute or pseudo-absolute) is of great importance.
In the second-rate realities, especially in their centers, the Its, those differences are not perceived as relative but as absolute – but in reality, they are pseudo-absolute. With that, the named opposites do not only represent opposites in general but also paradoxes, splittings and contradictions.
To the topics
– `The opposites of the It´
– ‘Mutation and adaptation of the It to its carrier / subject’
– `Types of the It’
– ‘formation of larger complexes’ see later `personal It´ or in detail in the unabridged German version.
In parallel to the opposites one can differentiate:
• An absolute connection between the + A / God1 and the person with + absolute attitude.
• Relative connections
• Fusions, mergers, pacts as seemingly absolute connections.
Like opposites, they can
a. strengthen each other or further merge and make more pacts
b. fight each other
c. neutralize, dissolve, negate each other or
d. turn into their opposite.
depending on which side of the underlying It is activated. (See figure above).
For more on contradictions, packages and cancellations, see the unabridged German version.
See above or e.g. All-or-nothing relationships.
Pacts arise by the same parts / sides with the same connotations and by the opposites with contrary connotations.
Shown by continuous lines → parts / sides are / are equal.
Opposites/ contradictions/ enmities arise by equals with contrary connotations, and by opposites with the same connotations.
Shown by dashed lines → Parts / sides are / are contrary.
Neutralizations, annulments arise by the same ones, in which the 0-page is activated at the same time, and by contradictory
ones with activated 0-pages. Shown by dotted lines → parts / pages neutralized. 45The connection between `Co-pro’ and` pro’ symbolizes a pact between a pro-form and a co-form (`co’ = together with).
The graphic also helps to understand the main paradoxes.
Originally in W¹, i.e. non-absolutized, those phenomena do not create pacts (equals), enmities (opposites) or neutrals. They only became such because of inversion.
Trial to allocate ideologies in the sense of this publication.
For further assignments, see Summary table column E.
Hypothesis: The dynamics and interactions between the Its and the ideologies are the same. 46Note: As I have mentioned, I mean with `ideology´ not only the well-known political ideologies but also ideologized familial and individual attitudes.
Like the Its all ideologies would have both: misabsolutization and negation. An ideology, or sA, cannot integrate its opposite ideology but must fight it, although at the same time it owes its existence to its opposite. And one can conclude that all ideologies are potentially pathogenic – and even more so the more unlike they are to the positive Absolute (+A), or in other words, the less love they impart.
“If there is a dark power, that is evil and treacherous enough, to insert a thread in our inside and to pull it tight and to drag us down dangerous and mischievous ways …, then it has to adjust itself to us and has to become like we are; only that way we believe in it and make the room for it that it desires to fulfill its mysterious work.”
E.T.A. Hoffmann, the Sandman.
Explanation of key terms
sS = strange Self: strange personal Absolute. Qualitatively further distinguished in:
+sS = the positive strange Self. Here equated with pro-sS.
‒sS = the negative strange Self. Here equated with contra-sS.
[asS = absolutistic sS (also hyper-Self) and rsS = relativistic sS are not dealt
with further in this abstract.]
p∀ = pAll = personal absolutized All. [Quantitative description of a strange Self. Mostly used in the contrast to the non-Self, p0 = personal nothingness.
p It = personal It: complex, that controls that person (P) and that contains two (all and nothing) or three (pro-, contra-sS and 0) parts as a dyad or triad.
Where the difference between `p It ‘and `sS’ does not matter, I use both terms synonymously.
Since this chapter is only about personal topics, I omit often the abbreviation `p’ for the sake of simplicity.
Synonyms and characteristic terms for p It
– Strange-, pseudo-, spare-, help-, emergency-, substitute-, compensation-, false-, divided center/ – Self of a person.
– ‘homunculus’, demon, parasite, devil, false friend, inner tyrant. Also: It as the dominant unconscious.
Everything that was described concerning the emergence of the general It, also applies to the personal It. 47Since I assume that some readers only read the one or the other section, I have repeated here the most important.
Analogical to the general It-description one can say: Due to an inversion, something Relative will be taken as absolute and the actual personal Absolute, the Self, is being negated.
The absolutized Relative may be of the person himself, or he may have an external origin. In both cases, something new, strange and personal is created with its own characteristics and dynamics.
I.e. a strange, second-rate Absolute, the strange Self, is created in the personal absolute-sphere after a misabsolutization. With this misabsolutization, the person also negates a part of his/her Self, so that there is not only a strange Self in the center of the person but also a “non-Self”. Those new, strange, central powers within the person are called the personal It in this publication. The personal It embodies a new and strange, controlling power, that exists along with the original first-rate power.
Initially, P has had dominance but loses its power continuously and becomes the loser in this situation.
A very important fact is, that the individual is convinced that the strange Self and not the actual Self is the right one. P is convinced to get major advantages from the choice of the strange Self. That fact is also a reason for holding on to the illness and therefore refusing to become healthy again. (Also see later: Freud’s morbid gain and the Resistance).
The new strange personal feature appears like a kind of strange person within us. Of course, there is no real new person being created but features, that imitate the actual person, take a certain spot within a person, or are taken instead of the actual person. Later on, we will discuss how the new strange personal parts can “talk” to us in the shape of acoustic hallucinations, or do many other things with us.
The comparison with a homunculus as some kind of false person, within us, is apparent and is used as a model for the described personal It in the following sections. Firstly, it is important to remember, that strange Self and non-Self, like a kind of homunculus within a person, are both dimensioned and differentiated in a characteristic way, which affects P in its psychical center. That becomes apparent in what I will call the ‘subject-object-reversal’. That means, that wherever the sS/resp. It is in control, the person loses its subject-role, and now becomes the It as subject and which determines the person as its object. With that, the person does not live first-rate anymore but second-rate, only functioning through the certain It. The second major result is a personalization of the It and a reification of the person. Things are seen as something personal and a part of the person becomes a kind of thing.
Looking at the dynamics (verbs or predicates), the focus of the beginning of the emergence of p It is: The It becomes independent, changes and lives by itself. That process affects all of the seven aspects of dimension and the connected differentiations of the It.
Mutation and Adaption of the It to the Person, and vice versa
Depending on where the p It is established, two main changes can be discovered:
1. The It changes P in its sense, according to its pattern resp. the person adapts to the It.
2. The It adapts to the person. It becomes more like the person, such as a parasite that is adapted to the host organism.
Brief Overview of the Origins and Structure of the Personal It and the Second-rate Personal (P²)
1st step (inversion) was: P inverts R and A (that was discussed on top).
2nd step (realization): the absolutized R (R*) becomes sS = strange Self and the actual Self becomes non-Self. Both are building the core of p It.
3rd step: simultaneous differentiation BLQC (Being, Life, Qualities, Connections become strange).
4th step: The p It subjects further Relatives and forms new strange personal (P²).
That is, an absolutized something with originally relative dimensions and differentiations changes into a new strange personal “unity” (P²) with new strange dimensions, differentiations, and connections, and the actual Self and personal are lost at this sphere.
(The development of the p It can also be found in the Summary table column G.)
This graphic illustrates the development of the personal It (left to right). On the very left, there is a person with a healthy self- and relative-sphere. Rightwards, the inversion of a Relative and the Self is symbolized. After that, the creation of an It-center (as Yin-Yang symbol) is being illustrated, which finally creates its own relative- sphere, as shown in the picture on the very right. You can also see, that the p It controls a part of P but the other part of P still contains the actual Self and has a first-rate relative-sphere, too.
Structure of the Personal It
Parallel to the structure of the general It, this is about the structure of the personal It.
Every p It, such as every other p unit, has three main dimensions: personal strange Absolute resp. strange Self, its relative sphere and nothingness and four main differentiations: strange personal BLQC.
Appearances of the Personal It
The personal It is per se a ‘triad’ and built of three parts (pro +, contra ‒ and 0).
However, it may appear different:
– as monad (with only one direction of action) – as dyad (split binary)
– as triad. The creation of the personal It as nine-sided triad happens analogously to the generally described creation of the nine-sided triad and is therefore not described again
• Personal It as nine-sided triad:
These symbols represent the personal It as nine-sided triad.
Both graphics also illustrate how a person is caught within the triad.
• Yin-Yang ☯ is a symbol of the It opposites in balance.
Comparison to Similar Terms
• Freud’s ‘Id’ (see general part).
• Self- and object-representations.
– Everything that is relative may be a self- or object-representation (interior or exterior).
– The Its are special representations because they are dominating. Here, they are described also with the terms of their parts: strange Self and non-Self.
Main Characteristics of the Personal It
The personal It (p It) has the same main characteristics as the It in general. I want to address only briefly how they concern the person.
The p It has strange characteristics, especially those of a strange Absolute and of a strange nothing.
It bonds its own Relatives, differentiates itself and therefore creates its own, independent and personal unit.
It controls specific areas of a person. It tries to expand or it conquers other Its.
It builds complexes and second-rate, personal systems. Altogether, they form a second-rate, personal reality.
It is no longer freely available for P² but able to be voted out by P¹, however, it still does not disappear right away.
The further p It moves away from +A, the more do mechanical and physical rules apply instead of the rules of life or of the living spirit, since the It is more materialized than the spirit. 48Parallel to this, a chaotization, takes place
How Can you Recognize the Personal It?
Terms such as “always”, “never”, “absolute”, “definitely”, “no way” “for sure” and so on, indicate an absolutization. Common phrases are: “I hate you”, “I love that more than life”, “You are my all” or similar. Also very typical: “I have absolutely to do that.”
Everyday It and Lifelong It
Such as described in the section of the general Its, the p Its may be very fugitive but also may stay for an entire life. A thought, that only lasts and dominates for a short time would be equivalent to a fugitive It. A traumatizing experience in the early childhood is an example for a lifelong It.
“Choice” of the p It
The decision of which strange Absolutes (sA) resp. Its is going to be established, often depends on the initial conditions. If a child lives in a disturbed family, it will probably adapt to the sA of the parents (mainly unknowingly). Or the child tries to compensate these disadvantages with the opposites: if the child is overwhelmed with arguments and aggression, it will probably absolutize harmony and peacefulness as a reactive response, to protect itself. Or, if disorientation, confusion and follies dominate a family’s life, a possible defense mechanism would be protecting itself by focusing on prudence and regulation. With that said, misabsolutizations are often results of unconscious defense mechanisms of childhood, that appear to be a relief of unbearable situations. To put in other words: Many times, misabsolutizations are the results of our inner protection, which eventually becomes more of prison or too costly. (See also: Mental disorders from biographical perspective).
As adults, we adapt at such Absolutes (partly passive, partly active) usually because of a short-term advantage.
More about the Different forces and connections in the personal It, see the corresponding remarks in the general chapter.
I repeat: The strange Self (sS) corresponds to the strange Absolute within a person. I call it the strange Self to differentiate it from the general strange Absolute and because the term ‘self’ is more personal and less general.
The terms `strange Self’ and `personal It´ I usually use synonymous, unless I distinguish it differently. 49The equality of the strange Self and the personal It is all the more justified if one also regards the non-Self as a kind of strange Self.
Typical examples for the strange Self:
as +*: achievements, idols, the ego, health, knowledge, status;
as ‒*: traumas, failure, impotence, illness, death;
But all Relatives are also possible as sS.
“False self” and other terms
“Thanks to Winnicott, we know about the concept of the true and the false self, whereby the false self adjusts to the needs of an insufficient environment and the true self stays concealed and split off.” 50Wöller, Wolfgang und Johannes Kruse: Tiefenpsychologisch fundierte Psychotherapie. Schattauer, Stuttgart, 2005. Or in: Reifungsprozesse und fördernde Umwelt, Fischer-V., Frankfurt a.M. 1985.
Janov uses the term ‘unreal self’, R.D. Laing uses the term ‘divided self’.
Any of the terms mentioned above, describes only a certain aspect of the strange Self but does not include all aspects at once, which would hard to do. The term ‘strange Self’ emphasizes the alienation of the person, ‘spare-self’ emphasizes the replaceability, ‘conditional self’ emphasizes that I only feel myself if I fulfill certain conditions, and so on. Taking all the different psychical aspects into consideration, different terms might be found that are also good suitable. To me, the term ‘strange Self’ seems to be best. The term ‘false self’ appears one-sided negative because the sS also contains positive sides and no human is free of it and the term “divided self” does not call the possibility of fusions.
Such as the actual Self, the strange Self contains a core, the core-strange Self, and connected, second-rate, strange Relatives, that are BLQC differentiated.
Whenever I speak of the strange Self, I am referring to the entire strange Self (and not only the core), unless I specify it differently.
Because of the importance: partial repetition.
How is the emergence of the strange Self (sS)?
It is originated after the same principles than a general It/sA : After an absolutization of R, or a negation of A¹, which where not corrected, a new and strange (ns) center is being established and differentiated within a person, a strange Self, which is experienced as the actual Self. With that, some kind of a dominant strange object is developed within us. Unlike other internalizations or introjections, that ‘personal strange object’ takes over the role of the Self including all its characteristics. Thus, a new personal reality is created, which will determine us. That is different than characteristics or personality traits that are created within us if those are only of relative importance.
Later on, we will see how the strange Self negates the actual Self. The strange Self behaves like the actual Self resp. personal Absolute and tries to adjust its features. Therefore, the affected person experiences it with those absolute features and accepts it as his/her own Absolute. Although the sS is not able to ever fully replace the actual Self, it achieves a partial success: It partly represents the Self and becomes very similar to it. That causes a typical situation for mental disorders to occur: The strange Self is being experienced as the own Self and the own Self is being experienced as strange (or as nothing). That´s why the affected person has feelings of alienation most of the time. If the identification with a strange Self is far progressed, the identity feeling can properly turn round itself: Then the person can have subjectively a good identity sensation, although he/she is objectively very alienated – and he/she can feel vice versa strong alienation, although he/she is objectively self-determined.
Examples: obligation and possession as strange Selves (sS)
The graphic illustrates the emergence of two strange Selves* (dotted lines) with two new Egos (= strange-Is), besides the first-rate I in the middle, which is based on an actual Self.
1. Left: A Relative (here obligation, aspect 12) is being absolutized and invades into the self-area. A strange Self is created in the self-area, from which an Ego is now operating. That causes a partial self-loss and a division of the self-area and the Ego.
2. Right: Another illustration of the emergence of a strange Self and Ego: The I leaves the center and establish itself in the relative edge area (here possession, aspect 9). Possession is becoming the new strange center, from which the Ego is now operating.
I want to explain the resulting situation more detailed by using the graphic from above. Let us assume that a person views the performance of his/her obligations as absolute (aspect 12). The performance of obligations is then superior to the Self. The self (-confidence, -esteem, -determination) is now mainly made conditional on the performance of obligations. As long as the performance of obligations is subordinated to the I, the I-self dominated, remained the boss in his own house and could handle adequately from this position with an offense against obligation, i.e. relaxed and free enough. Then I-self “knows” that my Self is the more important, first-rate, more valuable etc. and that the fulfillment of obligations in contrast to it has a relative meaning. However, if the performance of obligations became a strange Self, it now claims the same characteristics as the ones that are only supposed to be owned by the actual Self. But now the Ego cannot simply with willpower get rid of the strange Self because it is materialized and personalized in the meantime.
The terms `strange Self´ and ‘It’ describes very well, that something strange has been created, that takes its effect by itself and that determines me (e.g.: It tears me apart, It depresses me, and so on). With that, they already show the main characteristics of mental disorders. The strange Self owns entelechy and its own dynamics in that position. New, strange dynamics and rules also determine the person in his/her center. They appear to be personal and some sort of self-propelling. As mentioned before, in the beginning, the person has some short-term, subjective advantages by installing a strange Self, although later on, the disadvantages will increase. All inverted parts of a person are as if they are put into new roles. However, the original, actual Self will always exist along, although it is weakened. With the inversion to a strange Self, the absolutized Relative is subjectively more absolute, more unconditional, more primarily (too important), more independent, more lively, more personal, more real and more similar to the Self than it was before. Fortunately, it is impossible for the sS to become exactly like the Self. Besides the strange Self, the partial negation of the actual Self also causes a non-Self to be developed, which I discuss below.
+ and – strange-Selves
+sS and ‒sS are synonymous with pro-sS and contra-sS.
Such as we differentiated the strange-Absolute as +sA and ‒sA, we can also distinguish the strange Self as +sS and ‒sS. +sS and ‒sS of the same aspect belong together. Per se, they are two relatively contrary poles of one aspect but now separated due to an absolutization, although rigidly connected also to each other.
Absolutized opposites are depended and separated from each other at the same time. They are the opposite and the same simultaneously. Such as a reflection in a mirror is the same but yet converse. They depend on each other and exclude each other at the same time. They coincide and are different in addition. Superficially, they are enemies but when it comes to fighting a third person (object), they are accomplices.
+ strange-Self (+sS)
Synonym: pro-Self or super-Self, personal as: false God, golden calf, crutch, corset, also fixed or false ideals/objects of love/ glorified; ‘drugs’ (otherwise see +sA).
‒ strange Self (‒sS)
Synonym: against- or contra- or anti-Self, personal as: false enemies, or objects of hate, false demonization, traumas
(otherwise see ‒sA).
Strange-Self as Dyad with Reverse Sides:
Using the Yin-Yang symbol, the illustration shows a +sS and a ‒sS in pro- and contra-position
with its contrary reverse sides. (The non-Self and the 0-sides of +sS and ‒sS are not shown here).
About the meaning of the reverse sides of the sS:
We are about to discuss a very important aspect, that illustrates parallels to S. Freud’s term of morbid gain. Neither the strange Absolute nor the strange Self is solely negative (such as the Relative). Although they are generally unfavorably, they also have positive sides, that are determining in individual cases, whether an sS can be emerged and stay for a long time. More specific: By using specific strange Selves, the affected person can stabilize or restore his/her inner balance. The strange Self gives and takes. It replaces Absolutes with similar Relatives. The strange Self is neither an enemy within us, that has to be defeated nor the God, which has to be glorified.
Difference between strange Selves and Traits or Personality Signs
The strange Self is always of absolute importance for the affected person. Character traits can be of absolute or of relative importance for the certain person, whereas a strange Self is always of absolute importance. In the everyday language, it remains uncertain if for instance such as the need for harmony is of relative or of absolute importance for a person. However, in psychodynamics the difference is important. The absolute position of the trait will cause all results of a strange Self, which still closer to be discussed. This is not in the case of a trait with relative meaning in such a way. Then the effects of the trait will have only relative results. The person, for example, will not be able to be split by them. The situation is comparable with somebody, with pleasure alcohol drinks (personality trait) and another who is dependent on alcohol.
Shortcuts and synonyms for the non-Self: p0², p0, not-Self, personal nothingness.
The emergence of the non-Self is equal to that of the general It, the all-or-nothing-principle by sacrificing the actual Self. 51 E.g. • M. Foucault: “No truth about the self is without the sacrifice of the self.” p 324
• F. Nietzsche: “I love all who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark cloud that lowers over man: they herald the coming of the lightning, and succumb as heralds.” Cit. `Thus Spoke Zarathustra´; Ch. 5
See if necessary All-and-Nothing Emergence´ in general.
The non-Self includes, regarding the dimensions above all absence or loss of sense, identity, reality, unity, safety, freedom, personal foundation, and autonomy. The non-Self includes, regarding the differentiations above all absence or loss of the first-rate personality, vitality, qualities, subject-role, and connections. Origins: above all nihilism and materialism.
Similar to The It in general. For more detail, see unabridged German version.
Differentiation of the personal It/ strange Self by 52Personal It and strange Self are named synonymously here too.
1. Structuring (here above all personalization)
4. Contextualization, subjectivization.
The personal It or strange Self is established in a person at the border of spirit and body – initially, in the shape of a spiritual misabsolutization, that crosses the border to the physical, which then becomes a new form of strange being and life with specific connections. In this form as a personal It, it dominates the person and becomes an essential cause for mental disorders. It personalizes itself, becomes alive, specially qualifies itself and creates new, strange connections. Therefore it becomes a new strange personal being, life, quality and subject with a new context.
This personal It corresponds in the organic sphere probably certain centers (I think not only in the brain) with particular functions that are connected again with other relevant structures functionally and organically with each other. The structures and functions have strange, in particular, all-or-nothing or pro-contra-or-nothing characteristics.
Especially to 4.
The p It becomes a new strange determining subject.
The main influence on the person is: The It makes P to its object.
Here, another additional characteristic of the strange Self/ It becomes visible: The strange Self takes the position of a personal, vivid subject, whereas P or the I take the position of an object. 531. A strange I-self forms, figuratively speaking, a kind of new strange person or homunculus in concerned.
Is it any wonder if, people hear voices, for example in this situation?
2. A one-sidedly science-oriented psychology / psychiatry is especially in danger of making man like an ‘object’ of his investigations and therapy. While the I-self as subject was based on a solid ground before, that unit is being disturbed: an sS becomes a new and strange basis for the I-parts and turns them into being its object, instrumentalizes and functionalizes them – a situation that is prototypical for mental disorders. It may be referred to as subject-object-reversion because whatever is supposed to be the object is now the subject and vice versa. As further consequences in this aspect one can also name subject-object-split and fusion or identification, which will be discussed later. In contrast, there is in the first-rate reality only a sort of difference between the actual subject (God1 or I-self) and the objects (inner and outer reality) but there is no splitting. A real splitting only takes place between +A and ‒A. (Analysis of speech/language see unabridged German version).
Such as the It is in general, the p It also can be differentiated by:
• origin and kind
• appearance. 54The changes are so experienced without to be so. In fact, the strange-Self is only similar to the Self but it is experienced as if the strange-Self is the actual Self.
See mainly: ‘The It in general‘
|In a humorous way (and in the style of Freud) the specific pIts could be labeled as following:|
All² = Totalo
+* = Libido, Eros, (Drives²)
–* = Destrudo, Aggresso, Thanatos (death drive)
0² = Nullo, Nego, Nihilo
rsA = Relativo
(and so on).
And the mental disorders that are caused by them could be jocularly called:
absolutitis or totalitis
relativitis (more examples: moralitis, collectivitis, individualitis, rationalitis –
and all of them can be contagious if one does not pay attention.)
About ‘Libido’ and ‘death drive’
“In classical Freudian psychoanalytic theory, the death drive (German: `Todestrieb´) is the drive towards death, self-destruction and the return to the inorganic chemistry.”55 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_drive, 2016 “The death drive opposes to Eros as the tendency toward survival, propagation, sex, and other creative, life-producing drives … Usually, there is a mixture of the death drive and Eros, such as there is always some sort of aggressive parts in a healthy intimate relationship, which helps to satisfy a person with himself. The loss of balance of the two tendencies leads to mental disorders.”56Ibid, 2016 If you focus on Freud’s extended understanding of the term ‘Libido’, it becomes obvious, that it is very similar to the discussed positive absolutization. (However, Freud’s Libido does not refer to the actual positive Absolute but more to the absolutized Relative.) In this publication, I have almost equated `love’ with the first-rate Absolute (God1) but love will nevertheless, without God1, become a +sA as Libido, as it is presented in certain publications57 Examples: Directions in Humanism, Anthroposophy, The Work of Byron Katie etc. but it is overstraining the human being. A similar parallel can be found between Freud’s ‘Destrudo’ and the strange Nothing (0²) and the ‒sA.
Since nobody is perfect, – everyone is overstrained to be his own Absolute himself. (→ Ideal-I / narcissism). He is, as mentioned, only absolute in the basic attitude to the Absolute. But if he requires himself to be the basis of his life himself, then the person in question will take a position that is contrary to his nature. Unfortunately, we are often weak, flawed or evil and in these situations we need an Absolute that is stronger than our own person or other people. We need a space in ourselves, an island, a piece of heaven, where we must be allowed to be very weak and helpless, have no responsibility, be beyond good and evil, that is to be just like children – otherwise, we would get sick in these situations or go down. It is the already discussed question, as to whether the adult-I or the child-of-god-I is at the person’s center. (→ `Adult-Ego and child-I´).
E.g. One does not do that – and so you have to make it (normativism).
I believe that the p Its cannot be localized in a specific area of the brain but they are psychical complexes that have been materialized and are dominating the person. Like a web, they are spread throughout multiple areas of the brain and the body, and have specific “second-rate” impacts, that will be discussed further later on.
Where can the Its arise? In all realities.
If in a person = personal It; Otherwise, as group-It, society-It, and so on.
The pers. It is in itself a ‘triad’ and consists of three parts (pro +, contra ‒ and 0).
However, it can differently appear as follows:
– as a monad (with only one effective direction)
– as dyad [`duality’].
– as triad [`trinity’]
Even if the p It appears as a monad or dyad, it is `really´ always a triad because the hidden, latent parts have not disappeared and can be activated at any time.
The personal It appears as a monad, one-sided, monovalent and monistic if:
1- only one part of the personal It is activated
for example the all or the nothingness, one ‒sS or one +sS etc.
2- two or more parts of the It, or their sides are participating with each other and only have one effect.
Also representatives of different ideologies often act monadic. For instance, they pretend to own the one and overarching truth. Whoever is not on their side, is against them. So with that, they appear to be all and all else is nothing.
(Also see `Strange-Self as Dyad ´ with Yin-Yang-symbol).
This is about the ambivalent personal strange Self, or It, that is playing an important part in the psychopathology. It specifically stands for divisiveness, ambivalence, contrast, contradiction and conflicts.
It partly stands for paradoxes and follies, as well.
The contradictions, divisiveness, or paradoxes may exist:
1 – In a strange Self or non-Self.
2 – Between different parts of a personal It.
3 – Between two or more sS or Its.
4 – Between an sS or It and an actual Absolute.
About the ambivalence of the p Its:
The p Its are not only structured by the all-or-nothing-principle but the ‘all’, the ‘totally’ is – at least potentially – a divided unit, split in two (or more) connected opposites. On the opposite of this split unit (split into pro-sS and contra-sS), there is on the other hand the strange nothingness, so that arises like a triangle (triad) after which p It is primarily structured and in which a corresponding dynamism takes place.
As mentioned before, the choice of an absolutized ideal also includes the (unknowingly) choice of the specific opposite (an anti-ideal) and the deselection of the ideal also includes the deletion of the anti-ideal – and the other way around. The p Its, such as the It in general, are very contradicting in their characteristics.
The ambivalence (or trivalence) of the p Its does not only explain their complicated dynamics but also explains the paradoxes and the follies, that can be found in many mental disorders.
Similar conclusions can be found in the psychoanalysis. I am thinking of the so-called mixture of drives in the theory of S. Freud, who believed that the sexual drive and the death drive are mixed regularly. Alike, Lacan, who said that the death drive can be found in every other drive.58Literature in Mertens, Peters and under keyword “mixed drives”.
Similar conclusions can be found in the psychoanalysis. I am thinking of the so-called mixture of drives in S. Freud´s theory, who believed that the sexual drive and the death drive are mixed regularly. Alike, Lacan, who said that the death drive can be found in every other drive. That becomes clear when looking at absolutizations of Relatives because both poles of them fused together (according to the drive-mixture) but also with oppositely position (which probably corresponds of Freud’s “drive-segregation”).
An overview of types of ambivalence is in the unabridged version.
Analogy of Characteristics of the It and the Mental Disorders
One can compare psychic disorders with similar characteristics as the sS resp. p Its: they are of an independent, “active” and of quasi-personal nature. I think that with mental disorders, always the Self is affected. In contrast to changes in the relative sphere, where you find only easy disturbances.
“This reality is nothing for me!” (A patient)
Optional chapter. If the reader is only interested in the EMERGENCE OF THE STRANGE, SECOND-RATE PERSONAL see there.
This chapter is about the general effects of the Its on different realities resp. worlds: world/ persons and I (WPI).
For the sake of simplicity I take often `W’ alone as a collective term for WPI.
The Its create second-rate realities² (WPI²).
These take a part of the first-rate reality¹ (WPI¹). Therefore, they are connected with a loss of first-rate reality. Relative realities become(pseudo)first-rate and the first-rate reality becomes irrelevant (or subordinate).
But first-rate reality can only temporarily be superseded by second-rate realities in areas where the It/sA are active. Since the first-rate reality is stronger than the second-rate realities, the first-rate reality is never fully gone/lost, so that there are always first-rate and second-rate areas of reality existing side by side. The second-rate realities are dominated by one, more, or many Its, that force their traits on them. One It generates WPI² in its whole domain, which is about all 23 aspects away with the main effect which the It itself represents. (For details, see later).In this chapter, the emergence of second-rate realities should be discussed generally.59I am writing first-rate reality deliberately in the singular and second-rate realities in the plural because these exist so. As said, specifics of the personal changes you find in the next chapter.
I often take as a synonym for second-rate realities = second-rate worlds = W². 601. The terms `reality ‘and` world’ are often used synonymously and abbreviated `W’. Otherwise the concept of reality is superior to that of the world.
I could not abbreviate reality with `R’ because that abbreviation stands for the Relative.
2. second-rate is not equivalent to the meaning of first-rate Relative.
The second rate realities include WPI² = [World, Person, I]² 61As I read after the conception of this publication, C.G. Jung also speaks of different realities, whereby his concept of “second reality” resembles the concept of “first-rate reality” used here, and vice versa, his concept of “first reality” resembles the concept of “second-rate realities” used here.
(See also B. Staehelin: ‘Trust and Second Reality’).
Also the term of the second worlds used in general language usage says the same thing.
The different phases of emergence of the second-rate realities can be categorized as follows:
1st phase: Inversion and emergence of the It as described.
Now: 2nd phase: It produces WPI².
Overview of all It-effects on WPI, see in the Summary table ! or in the unabridged German version.
So far, we described the It as new strange dominant, which core is made out of All² (pro/contra) and Nothingness².
Now we will see, how the It expands and how It causes new strange realities (W²).
This graphic shows how the It (including all It-parts) irrupts in the first-rate reality and what is created by that:
1st The created second-rate reality (here: world, people, I) is being dominated by the It-parts.
2nd WPI are put in a suppressed, relativized position (illustrated by the gray shade). They are also changed in the sense of the respective It – they become `it-similar’. On the other hand, you can see that WPI is sometimes able to get something positive from pro-sA-parts (`hyperforms´) because the It incorporates those parts as well.
3rd The It-parts are in italics to show that they too are changing. They adapt to the new strange reality, too.
4th The dashed line shows the loss of first-class reality.
5th The inner splittings of the It and also the WPI are indicated by the solid lines.
The It works in the same way how it is. It is totally pro or totally contra or totally 0 and causes WPI also to become too pro, contra or 0. Therefore, one can speak of a “principle of creation of a too equal, an opposite and nothingness” in the second-rate realities caused by the Its .
The It determines the specific reality, changes the reality and makes it similar to the It. The difference, however, is that the action described occurs at the expense of the units affected, since this process is associated with a loss of prime reality, even though it seduces the oppressed person with greater benefit in the beginning.
Different Its determine in the form of the prevailing zeitgeist various groups or societies or generations.
The following spheres of these second-rate realities (WPI²) shall be distinguished:
1. The It (as a dominant center).
2. The sphere dominated by the It, which can be subdivided into:
Pro-sphere = + hyper-forms with Co-forms, participants, functionaries, followers.
Contra-sphere (with opponents).
0 sphere, negated or sacrificed sphere.
The individual spheres overlap.
Basic possibilities of deviation from the optimal probably reflect a similar classification:
too much (= pro-forms or hyper-forms), false (= contra-forms) and 0 (nothing).
Incidentally, I think that the mental disorders discussed later have similar patterns, too.
Chronological sequence: At the beginning, there is a pro-dynamic: The It first forms a pro-sphere (+ hyper-forms) in WPI – but at the cost of first-rate reality. Its loss causes the formation of the + hyper-forms, which finally become so expensive that the system² tips over to the opposite (contra or 0 forms). (→ • Reversal into the opposite)
Generally formulated: pairs of opposites* exist at the expense of first-rate reality. If a pole* is too expensive, it turns into an opposite
(or vice versa). The system² can oscillate between two extremes until it dies or finds an emergency solution or the actual solution.
For examples, see in `Complex Personal Dynamics and Relationship Disorders´.
1. All Its require sacrifices.
2. The sacrificial-sphere of WPI is getting bigger throughout the process because the Its are using WPI to stay alive and to stay dominant.
In the second-rate realities, the Its are like dictators with their helpers, that dominate everything else in their territory. They also can be compared to parasites/ viruses/ demons – depending on their respective properties. The Its force their programs onto the realities, usually by using the principle of all-or-nothing. Just as the examples demonstrate, they act in various ways. Sometimes their actions are paradoxical or contradicting, but they are never solely negatively. Especially in the beginning, their effects appear to be very positive. In the long run however, they become disturbing and pathogenic. Everything is subordinated to them: the truth, the freedom, the reality, other people and finally the affected reality resp. person itself. Although the person seems to be heightened in the beginning, he/she ends up being degraded.
(The It as offender and the Person as victim see below).
There are rigid hierarchies from It/sA to its R, as well from It/sA to other It/sA. (Typical for W²). Second-rate systems of our inside can be compared to Totalitarian states: There is a central, powerful It that dominates everything, such as a dictator. One level below that, there are contributors/ participants/ functionaries, and on the bottom are powerless people, who are receiving the orders.
The system is very sensitive: If only one of the participants is being questioned or attacked, the whole system is endangered. Therefore it reacts accordingly hard and merciless but it also sacrifices its own contributors if necessary.
The It subjugates its own Relatives like subjects. Although it gives them a second-rate center/sense/support, it takes away their independence. The new strange Relatives have to sacrifice themselves for the It if there is any kind of hazard. An It however, will never sacrifice itself for its own members. However, in the end, the It is also powerless if it is without its Relatives, its subordinates. It can be compared to other systems that collapse as soon as their center disappears (domino effect).Thus, the Its are overpowering as well as powerless, (pseudo)absolute and irrelevant at the same time. (Compare to Therapeutic Goals / Value Hierarchies of the first-rate reality).
• The Its affect not only the individual but also entire societies – ultimately our world as a whole. (More later.)
• The Its change WPI in their sense. That WPI becomes `It-similar. (Just as the other hand, It adapts to WPI).
• The It-effects are not total but they are all the stronger and pathogenic, the larger the difference is between the sA and +A.
• The Its work beyond their own aspect.
All Its cause changes in all of the 7 aspects of dimension and in all of the 4 main aspects of differentiation.
The It of a certain aspect also causes the main changes/defaults in its specific aspect, whereas It causes side effects but also facultative effects in all the other aspects. Example: Absolutization of truth has a special impact concerning the question true or false but it also has an impact on all the other aspects. Suppose a family has absolutized truth, then the family is subjected to the dictates of unconditioned truth-telling. This sA truth* will then also determine certain spheres of being, life, the qualities and relationships (BLQC) of the family. Also, two opposite poles, which can be called “lie” and “indifference” arise.
In addition, two opposite poles, which can be called “lie” and “indifference” arise. (See the section `Spreading and compression´).
• All Its can have all results – also positive ones.
All Its are principally able to cause any kind of second-rate forms.
All Its have all kinds of results, negative and positive results. I.e. a ‒It may cause +² and a +It may cause ‒².
Therefore, the reverse side of a ‒It can have positive effects and the reverse side of a +It can have negative effects. For example: I am not allowed to feel good, I am not allowed to accept love, love is negative;
If I am being hated it is positive. Or illness* is giving identity² or sense² and so on.
Also: Every It may cause illness, as well as health. Although the It usually causes illness.
The contradicting effects of the Its are important for understanding the paradoxes and certain psychopathologies.
The strangeness, the contradictory, the split, the fused, and in the truest sense of the word ‘craziness’ appear to be particularly striking as It-effects.
Here, I mainly use very general and basic terms that change when used in specific areas. Splitting of a married couple would be called divorce or breakup, a splitting of the inner Self would be referred to as split personality or schizophrenia. However, I believe that the basic principles of the emergence of those so-called second-rate realities and their characteristics, are very similar and are connected with each other.
The new, strange, second-rate realities lost the actual Absolute and are therefore not unequivocal, unique (etc.) but ambiguous, paradoxical, contradicting (etc).62Even the “hyperforms”, which appear to be unambiguous on the surface, also have their downsides. This contradicts our usual thinking and talking. We speak possibly of the fact that this or that person is chaotic, another richly, a third haughty. Or that the environment is either way etc. I.e. we often see only the superficial, “activated” pole of something. But in fact, the second-rate reality or the person carries also the corresponding opposite and a 0-part in itself.63This ambiguity of our existence has been portrayed authoritatively by H. v. Hofmannsthal (for example, in his “Chandos Brief”), Novalis, and more recently P. Auster.
One can distinguish:
a) Connected opposites in the form of a split unity (e.g. finite infinity, dead life, poor rich, empty abundance, alien self, blissful sorrow, sweet revenge, liberating illness, etc.) That’s why the “usually” positive can be negative, or the right can be wrong, or the “usually” logical can be illogical, or the good can be bad, or the otherwise moral can be immoral. Or it may be wiser to lie than to tell the truth, or better off being ill than well, etc.
b) Connected opposites in different units, such as different people.
(→ Collusions, collisions, complexes). See also `Two Kinds of Luck´, Juxtaposition of Different Realities´.
About the Areas a1-764According to the classification in the Summary table.
“I am the spirit of always saying no…” Mephisto in Faust
With regard to the It-effect in this aspect, one can formulate:
It negates, disturbs or hyper-absolutizes WPI.
→ “Victory of the Relative over the Absolute”.
Referring to the It-effects in this aspect, one can formulate:
It derealizes, falsifies or over-realizes the spheres of reality that are dominated by It.
(More in `Disorder of the person’s identity´)
Referring to the It-effects in this aspect, one can formulate:
It derealizes, falsifies or over-realizes the spheres of reality that are dominated by It.
Hypotheses: Not only the It in this aspect but also all the Its of the other aspects cause some sort of loss or falsification of reality. Artificial realities are being created and the actual reality will be experienced as falsified or negated. On the other side, a part of reality can become one-sided or unambiguous (`hyper-reality´) due to hyper-realization.
Referring to the It-effects in this aspect, one can formulate:
It chaotisizes or splits or fuses subordinated areas of reality.
(More in `Disorder of the person’s unity´)
The Its in this aspect unsettle, misprogram or determine and fix.
Thus, the corresponding Its generate fixations, cause unconditionals, provide preconditions, urge, admit no exception – and on the other hand: Its release and forsake WPI.
The Its in this aspect uproot or level, dislocate or make extremes.
Its make actual priorities as second-rate or negate them.
They also generate “hyper-centers” and “hyper-causes” (e.g., in the form of false causes).
Also: Results will become causes/ and causes become results or nothing.
The It/sA are often like exponents: They potentiate a negative or a positive situation.
The Its of this aspect also have effects of Its of the other dimension aspects.
All Its also lead to more or less great loss of overview meta-level/ “horizon”.
Parallel in the literature: “The lost horizon” by James Hilton.
WPI become due to the Its more or false dependent or -independent and the Its dominate and automatize WPI-parts.
Overview of changes:
 The participants, as already mentioned, have also the characteristics of the Its themselves.
About I. Disturbance and Reversal of Being
„It always happens the same in history:
an ideal, an elevated idea coarsens itself, is materialized.“ (B. Pasternak)
The Its disturb and mistake matter and spirit.
The Its destroy, materialize (reification) or ideologize WPI
That means that mechanical or physical laws and patterns often are foregrounded and dominate the spirit in the second-rate realities that are determined by Its. It also means, that the second-rate being is mainly too material, objective and tangible and that the realities are more monotonous and mechanized. People who are so constituted come close to robots and machines, and have corresponding dynamics (↑ functions)
– or it is a being full of ‘strange spirits’ or it is both, side by side.
(See also corresponding experience in a psychosis, for example, later on).
About II. Disturbance and Reversal of Life
The Its disturb and confuse life and functions.
The basic impacts in this aspect are:
The Its gain life and vitality and WPI only function or die. (reversal of life and functioning).
Only in the role of a participant, WPI will be hyper-vitalized.
About III. Disturbance and Reversal of Qualities
The Its disturb and confuse the qualities.
The Its in this aspect have gained absolute quality, whereas WPI only receives a relative quality or no quality at all.
They disqualify or misqualify WPI. The misqualification may also contain that they put WPI in a role of a participant and then WPI will be of oversized, quasi-absolute importance. That importance can be positively or negatively connoted. The reversal of qualification may also consist of the reversal of negative and positive or other qualities.
About IV: Disturbance and Reversal of Subjects, Objects and Contexts
The Its disturb and confuse subjects and objects.
Due to reversal, the Its as original objects became subjects and cause now original subjects (especially persons) to become objects. The person is no longer the master in its own house.
This Subject-object-reversal will be discussed more when talking about the It-effects on a person. The Its in this aspect also cause mistakes of the connections: Relative connections become unconditional, absolute connections (e.g.,: guilt – punishment) and relative disconnections become absolute. That causes misconnections and misseparations to appear.
“Since Copernicus, man seems to have got himself on an inclined plane –
now he is slipping faster and faster away from the center into –
what? into nothingness?” F. Nietzsche
The main effect in this aspect is: the Its negate and destroy.
More specifically: They create All² but especially nothing².
As ideologies, they mainly appear in the shape of totalitarianism, reductionism and nihilism. They alter WPI especially in a nihilistic, total and reductionistic way, so that WPI is being negated, destroyed, isolated, or (as a participant and functionary ) totalized.
This mainly causes a loss of first-rate all and individual. Therefore, the reality appears to be emptied, isolated or totalized. The splitting can be called ‘all-or-nothing-splitting’.
The It ‘claims’ all* or nothing*. An example of that would be the digitization of the world, of life with all its advantages and disadvantages. If objects are digitized, it has rather advantages but the digitalization of the person originates considerable disadvantages because the living is lost.
The main effect in this aspect is: the Its profane.
The Its as ideologies, especially in the shape of superstition, spirituality, secularism and atheism profane, demonize or idolize WPI. WPI thereby loses above all first-rate the positive Absolute (God, love, sense) and thereby there originates a state of godlessness, lovelessness and futility or strange gods.
3. Reification and False Personification
The main effect in this aspect is: the Its (especially personal Its) reify the personal and personalize themselves 65Keyword `homunkulus´or other things.
(Further see the Disorder of person and things.)
The main effect in this aspect is: the Its de- / misindividualize or hyper-individualize.
The main effect in this aspect is: The Its causes soullessness and spiritlessness and somatize (themselves or something).
The Its negate or even kill actual spiritual, mental or psychical areas or change them. Spiritlessness and soullessness are being created in certain systems (e.g.: something becomes senseless, spiritless or is being ideologized.) It-effects of this aspect can be found in all of the ideologies. Especially they can be found in the spiritual sphere as a consequence of spiritualism, in the psychical sphere as a consequence of psychologism, and in the physical sphere as a consequence of the so-called healthism.
Detailed representation concerning the person see chapter `It-effects on P´.
Many social systems show some of the features of the named It-effects. For example: splittings in poor and rich; powerful and powerless; alive and killed and so on, or in the shape of contrary social orders like communism/capitalism; or in the form of deadly ideologies that may cause consequences like the Holocaust, genocides, racism, nationalism and so on. They are also made up like the all-or-nothing-principle resp. pro- or contra-principle and can be divided into disturbing-sphere, participant-sphere and sacrificial-sphere.
As mentioned before, all of the second-rate realities show the named characteristics and this the more, the more a negative became positively absolutized or a positive negatively absolutized.
Otherwise put: In a society, where brutality, contempt of mankind, aggression, war (and so on) is viewed positively and opposite trends are suppressed at the same time, the negative characteristics of the second-rate reality will be seen more and more. A society, where humanity and peace (etc.) are being valued, and that therefore is very similar to an actual positive world, is less divided and less disturbed. However, here on earth, no society can be formed that is perfect and without the named second-rate characteristics.
It/sA and their consequences can also be found outside of the person in different environments. Example: Ecological damage, armories (etc.), as results of the It/sA and with effect on the person.
Concerning families see later in `Personal system and relationship disorders´.
The virtual worlds, that are gaining importance, also belong here if they dominate the person.
Important mindsets, ideologies, or religions belong here if they dominate the person. They are not the bad/evil themselves because they also have positive parts. They are determined by collective strange Absolutes. They should not be fought but criticized and a person should pay attention to them and should try to integrate the positive aspects.
In human history, there were many misabsolutizations. Usually, they can be recognized as the named ideologies including their advantages and disadvantages. They are forms and aspects that are always created in new ways that are still the same eventually and that are all representing the same or similar ‘games’.
The most important ideologies have already been mentioned.66See Summary table column E. Especially the social sciences, mostly the social psychiatry and the systematic therapies focus on these topics. In contrast to them, I will try to present known problems from a new perspective.
I repeat that I am convinced that the mentioned second-rate forms and their dynamics cannot just be found in a general form (environment etc.) but also within the person (and they are both connected to each other). Here as well as there they are essential foundations for diseases and just as one can speak of sick people, one can also speak of sick (and disease-causing) societies and environments.
The general It-effects can be summarized as follows: They create new strange realities, which are called second-rate realities, too.
Those second-rate realities are structured according to all-or-nothing-pattern: The suppressed reality-sphere is either being adapted to the certain It completely, or it is seen as contrary/hostile or is being negated and liquidated.
Considering the different dimensions (a1-a7), the Its mainly cause the following changes:
Negation and relativization; homogenization and alienation; derealization and falsification; conglomeration and splitting (and merging); destabilization and malprogramming; dislocation and displacement; dependence and suppression of different realities (WPI).
Considering the 4 main differentiation, the Its mainly cause the following changes:
Destruction and materializing; killing and functionalization; dis- and false qualification; desubjectivization and instrumentalization; disbanding or defective connections.
Considering the pr units: Destruction and isolation; negation and profanization; depersonalization and reification; deindividualization and massification; despiritualization and somatization; castration and disorder of love.
The listed terms are meant to be understood as keywords – More can be gathered from the following chapters about the person or the Summary table.
So far, we briefly discussed the emergence and the general effects of the Its. Now, the effects of the Its on the person will be illustrated more detailed because it´s for our topic most important. 67The personal It I often call only ‘It’ in this chapter.
As mentioned: It is typically for all Its (like the p It too) that they are made of two or three contradicting ‘parts’: as `dyad´ of all and nothing and as `triad´ of a pro-, a contra- and a 0-part.
For the sake of variety, I sometimes only speak of one It, sometimes of Its in the plural or of three I-parts (pro +, contra ‒, 0).
The effects of the Its on the person are very similar to the effects of the Its on reality in general. The main difference is that the person has direct access to the absolute-sphere. That means that P has an absolute choice. In contrast to that, non-personal subjects do not have the choice to accept nor to reject an inversion. Only the choice and/or the identification with an inversion can lead to the emergence of a personal It.
In essence, then something becomes personal and personal becomes like something.
The Its can originate from the person himself or can also be transferred to P by other systems. That transference happens over the systems A-spheres. Disorders in society, such as splittings can cause disorders (splittings) within the individual people. The transference of disorders does not occur one to one, i.e. the disorder within the person does not have to be the same as the disorder in society. Due to the fact, that the opposites are very close to each other, the individual is often affected by one of the contrary disorder!
As well as the It changes parts of the reality after his picture, as described on top, it also changes parts of the person after his picture. In this chapter we will discuss how the It forces its characteristics onto the person. I will call this general change person-It-Reversal. The It gets quasi-personal characteristics and becomes like a person and forces its characteristics onto the person. Those changed personal spheres will be called second-rate personal = P². But besides these changed, strange personal areas, there will always be ‘healthy’ P¹ parts remaining, which is very important for the therapy.
The It and the person switch roles. 68For the person-thing-inversion, see later.
Considering the 7 DM-aspects:69`DM aspects’: the 7 dimension aspects are meant.
The It becomes similar to the first-rate personal: pseudo-absolute, pseudo-self, pseudo-real, pseudo-uniform, pseudo-autonomous, pseudo-individual and pseudo-spiritual.
On the other side actual personal aspects are changed by the It and become: too relative resp. irrelevant , strange, non-actual, divided, heteronomous, materialistic and apersonal. With that the person becomes like the original It.
Considering the DF-aspects: The person exchanges (lively) being with only existing, life with functioning, heavenly luck with earthly thrill and the subject role with an object role. Now, the person is an object and dominated by the It as a strange subject.70Instead of the rule of the It over the person, one can also speak of the rule of the objects * (of the absolutized objects) over the person as subject. (See later).
Th.W. Adorno has dealt with this also. “Objects” can also mean the rule of the material over the spiritual. So also the rule of the dependent over the independent.
In addition, the person exchanges individuality with egocentricity or uniformity, freedom with distance or constriction, reality with unreality or `hyper-reality´, security with defenselessness or armor, and so on. 71In the case of the second-rate, which the person exchanges with his prime, one always finds part and opposite and 0.
Since the absolute-area of a person has a spiritual dimension but the Relative is more materialistic, one may also talk about a mind-thing-reversal of a person.
(See also `The Subject-object-reversal´).
In this table, `strange’ is only a key word for all possible second-rate characteristics.
Further see Summary table column O-S.
– Concerning the areas, P² consists of the strange Self in the absolute-area and its relative areas.72As mentioned, the strange Self is only apparently absolute but it is absolutely experienced by the person concerned.
– Concerning the rank, P² is of second-rate or 0.
– Concerning the orientation we find three P²-parts:
1. pro- resp. +part (hyper-forms/ participants/ functionaries)
2. contra- resp. ‒part
3. sacrificial-part (P0)
There are also (still) free first-rate parts = residual-P¹.
The strange person (P²) is multiply divided:
On one side the person is similar the It, and on the other side he/she is mainly their victim; On one side the person is his/her own master and on the other side he/she is his/her own slave; On one side the person is his/her own God/idol and on the other side his/her own devil/enemy; On one side the It of P became personal and on the other side the person became like a thing; On one side the It of P became strange subject and on the other side P became strange object.
The introduced classification of the second-rate personal and the different parts of p It are arbitrary. It mainly shows the negative nature of the Its. The It-core in its role as second-rate subject mainly acts as the offender. In its further area there are the most damaged or sacrificed parts. However, we must relativize this point of view because the Its also have positive aspects for the person (especially at the beginning) in form of + hyper-forms of which the person participates (as `participants´).
Because it is important, I repeat that P² has not only disadvantages but also hyper-positive aspects such as: hyper-self, hyper-identity, hyper-security, hyper-well-being, hyper-activity, hyper-vitality , too much love and so on.
• The It in this publication, is very similar to what is understood when using the term homunculus. I mentioned it already. The It and homunculus are similar when it comes to the idea of something being created within us that has personal characteristics, especially a certain autonomy, that cannot be directly willingly influenced by the person.
• The similarity of an It, or of a homunculus to a person is the greatest when the It represents a real person (e.g., when another person was idealized by the affected person.)
Also see: causes for Hallucinations.-
Depending on how useful or harmful the homunculus is within us, it effects like a dictator and tyrant, a virus or a parasite. But the best-case scenario is that it lives within us as a symbiont. In that case, it is neither the good nor the bad.
• The `homunculus´ usually has a complicated structure formed of different Its that operate jointly on the one hand and fight and hinder each other on the other hand.
Every It/sA disturbs more or less all 7 dimension aspects (DM) of the person.
They disturb above all the right of self-determination, the identity, the authenticity, the uniqueness, the unity, the unconditional dignity, the right to live, the independence and the freedom. It can be compared to a disorder of the general human rights.
The Its, which affect this aspect, have a nihilistic or relativistic or absolutistic character. That means:
– they negate the personal Absolute, or
– they relativize the personal Absolute, which will also be alienated, divided, suppressed, falsified and insane, or
– they may also hyper-absolutize the absolute-area of a person. For example by idolization of a certain part of the person.
The main effect of the Its on people is their negation. With that, the person loses the first-rate personality, the Self and other connected characteristics on the territory of an It.
– P loses more than he/she gains
An It was created as follows: mainly too pro (hyper) too strange resp. contrary, less 0.
The impacts of the Its on P are the other way around: The focus is on the negation of P, then there is the alienation and creation of opposites, and then there is a little bit of pro-participation. That means that the It mostly steals parts of the person and only gives back a little part. Therefore, the It is mainly acting as an offender and the person is mainly the victim.
– The loss of one aspect also means the loss of other aspects.
For example: The loss of identity is also a loss of security, reality, unity of a person, their priority and basis, their independence; and also means the loss of first-rate spirit, live, quality, subjectivity and so on – but also first-rate relative areas are being lost.
The Its of this aspect mostly cause P to become too uniform, alienated, or hyper-identified.
Ideologies of this aspect would be uniformism, determinism and philosophies of identity. Everyday examples are sentences like “you are just like your mother”, “you are a blighter”, “you are the greatest” (and similar).
In this aspect, I also discuss the following topics because they are essentially related to identity:
1. Transformation and alienation
2. The emergence of paradoxes.
1. Transformation and Alienation
In our life we are confronted with the phenomenon that everything that is psychically relevant can be transformed.
In a passive direction, from outside to inside: For example: consequences of other people’s actions can be internalized. In the active direction, from the inside out: Physical or psychical things are expressed in actions and functions. There are many changes on the way from outside to inside or vice versa.
We can also find analogous changes in the language.
I want to give a specific example of that. Suppose someone is raised in a chaotic family, then he can become chaotic.
If we analyze the process, we will find out that there are four steps.
1st step: The parents confuse the affected person.
2nd step: The person is getting confused.
3rd step: The person is confused.
4th step: The person is chaotic.
Let us also consider the additional, following steps:
5th step: The strange Self (sS) (here: the confusion*) acts in him: It disorders and dissolves him and
6th step: a) P disintegrates and b) and his actions become more disordered and irregular.
What happened? To answer that in a very basic way, one could say that the parent’s behavior causes something to emerge within the affected person. Something, that acts by itself and causes the person to malfunction and act false.
The analysis of language shows the change in a similar way: A verb (to confuse) becomes substantive (the confusion) which makes a verb again. More specifically: 1st step: verb (to confuse) → 2nd: processual passive (getting confused) → 3rd: participle (is confused) → 4th: adjective (chaotic) and a new substantive (the confusion) → 5th step: The strange Self (sS) (here: the confusion*) acts in him: it disorders and chaotizises him and 6th: a) processual verbs (the person disintegrates) with b) new adverb (actions and procedures become more disordered and irregular).
The sequence illustrates how in the person concerned strange-new can originate, which affects by itself (!) and changes our actions and functions. The actions also get a too functional character because they don’t come from the real I-self, like the first-rate actions but from strange Selves resp. strange-Egos.
Broadly speaking: The I-self lives above all but the strange-Ego functions or reacts more.
Just as a quick reminder, I believe that the described changes are only possible if the absolute sphere of the person is disturbed. An actual Absolute compensates such disturbances.
Disturbances are caused seldom by one sA only but more often by many sA with corresponding mainly negative actions. Example: One cannot only be confused because he / she has been confused by others but also because the person has become disoriented, oppressed, disenfranchised, devalued, infantilized etc.
|a) From the inside towards the outside:|
The behavior of a person is alienated by strange
Selves (sS) in the person (P).
|b) Exterior signals are being alienated by strange-Selves (sS) of a person, too.|
I saw various things that looked the same
and same things that looked different –
and I searched for the reason.
Hypotheses Paradoxes may occur:
1. Due to inversion, when first-rate aspects become second-rate aspects or when second-rate aspects become first-rate.
2. If sA change their characteristics,
a) if one or more equal sA become contrary,
b) if one or more contrary sA become equally.
This Fig. is intended to show that one sA has three parts that are quite oppositely connoted, and that the 3 opposing sA can have the same connotation if a backside is activated. That paradoxically, one can experience the same sA quite opposite, and a contra-sA just like a pro-sA, if its backside is activated.
Or you can also experience a pro-sA and a contra-sA as 0.
The It that mainly affects this aspect comes from ideologies like realism, objectivism and positivism.
It is hyper-realistic, false and deceptive or unreal.
It effects on P or parts of him:
1- It derealizes person.
2. It distorts and inverses a person´s reality and causes a contradiction between different realities.
3. It hyper-realizes a person. P often has a compensatory-profit then, by a new personal reality that appears to be positive in the beginning.
An It paradoxically causes the affected person to view unreal aspects of him/herself as real and real aspects as unreal.
1. It splittings the person.
2. It creates new strange split personal parts that contradict each other or fuses personal parts with each other or
3. It creates new strange personal hyper-units by fusing.
Possible ideologies: Monism, syncretism, structuralism, pluralism, atomism, reductionism.
Paradox: The person experiences the actual personal unity now as dissolved or split or other personal parts fused.
An additional paradox is that the same personal part may be experienced in different ways.
See also: Splittings and fusions in Schizophrenia.
“If I do not have it, I fall apart” – a patient.
The It fuses with parts of the person or fuses different parts with each other. It is as if parts of the person are being compressed and merged. That may cause a feeling of being a compact wholeness, that saves the person from being divided. Although this may be the case temporarily, splittings are encouraged in the long term by the fusions. Fusions and splittings occur side by side or alternately.
What can be split (see the section below) can also be fused by the It. E.g., subject-object-fusion, fusions of different objects, etc.
This topic reappears when discussing Schizophrenia.
Inversions can lead to splittings in all known areas:
This means that there can be divisions in all aspects of the dimensions and differentiations.
(eg: subject-object-split, matter-spirit-split or soul-body-split).
Like a single person, so a whole group of people, a society (like any system) can be split (and also fused, suppressed, scared etc.).A relative difference is made to the absolute opposite. There is then only absolutely true or absolutely untrue, right or wrong, black or white, pro or contra, only good or evil, only all or nothing, only friend or enemy, only for me or against me, either perpetrator or victim, strong or powerless, saints or whores, and so on.
Double messages, paradoxes, contradictions (or similar) are caused by splittings. Messages that are too one-sided or too general are caused by fusions.
The main splittings or breaking points within P:
The main splittings in P²:
1. between the first-rate P¹ and the second-rate P².
2. between the all and the nothingness of P².
3. between the pro- and contra-parts of all.
Additional splittings are possible between all parts of P²
Briefly about Subject-Object-Splittings
Due to an inversion, a first-rate subject becomes an object. Or it may only function as second-rate subject, as strange-I and also loses the connection to its original first-rate objects.
That causes a splitting within the subject-area into a first-rate and a second-rate subject, as well as a splitting of the strange subject and a first-rate object. Between a first-rate subject and second-rate objects emerge only relative contradictions because the first-rate subject can tolerate second-rate objects.
Briefly about the Emergence of Opposites
Inversions cause opposites:73But also pacts, see elsewhere.
Consequence: Side by side of opposites:
narcissism # self-hate
fear # lust
hate # love²
too much proximity # too much distance etc.
You can read the possible opposites in all aspects in the Summary table in column N.
They are marked there on the one hand by ↓ and on the other hand by ↑.
Otherwise see also `It-parts, opposites …´.
1. This It makes the person insecure. It causes a loss of safety and freedom.
2. It misprograms the person. It sets up demands on P. It forces, compels and does not allow exceptions.
3. It causes hyper-safety and hyper-freedoms.
Its are like golden cages within our soul.
Possible ideologies: Dogmatism, determinism, partly skepticism, libertinism.
1. The It uproots and levels P. It steals the person´s actual basis.
2. It twists and falsifies the personal basis: what used to be peripheral, will be the basis and what used to be the original basis will be the new strange periphery. On the one hand the It uproots and undermines the personal base and causes a displacement of P on the periphery. On the other hand It establishes many new centers. It results in a mix-up of center and periphery.
3. It forms also personal hyper-centers. The person has compensatory-profit with such new strange personal centers.
Possible ideologies: fundamentalism, radicalism, extremism, eccentricity.
Always there is a loss or a disorder of the first-rate personal center/ base.
Also: All inversions resp. It/sA cause more or less of a loss of “height”/ overview/ meta level/ horizon.74An important symptom in schizophrenia, see there.
About the Reversal of Causes (Problem Shifting)
The Its shift causes and problems. Then we don´t ask, for example, anymore for the real causes of our illnesses but only for secondary causes.
Further see `Causes and Results´ in Metapsychology.
1. The Its cause the person to be dependent. They steal the person’s autonomy as well as good ties. Or
2. The Its inverse and alienate the personal autonomy and ties. Or
3. The Its form hyper-autonomous centers (keyword: “self-running”) and form new independent spheres.
The person has a substitute gain by this new strange autonomy – or P has the expensive advantage that he/she no autonomy must venture, no responsibility must take over.
Possible ideologies: determinism, evolutionism, philosophy of immanence.
In general, there will be a loss/ disorder of person´s autonomy and tie.
1. The Its destroy the personal being, or
2. The Its cause a disorder, reversal or alienation of the personal being. They create new strange personal being. They change the personal being in their sense. Then the personal being is similar to the being of the Its.
3. The Its create personal hyper-forms.
1. The Its kill, or reduce life, or
2. The Its disturb, twist and falsify our life. That life is similar to the life of the Its. They replace living with functioning and role behavior.
3. The Its cause above all at the beginning hyper vitality, “hyper-life”, hyper-activities.
The person appears especially as an automat, machine, official, apparatchik, role player and life seems dead and dead things appear alive. 75Schizophrenic people experience often like that.
1. The Its disqualify the person. The result is a loss of primary personal qualities.
2. The Its change the qualities of the person, above all because they falsify these, twist and disturb.
3. The Its can cause personal hyper-qualities – as a rule, linked with accordingly raised emotions.
Paradoxes due to reversal of Qualities
The sensations of various qualities of P² do not match the actual qualities. In this way, something negative can be perceived and handled positively and something positive negatively.
For example: Illness is better than health, the object-role is better than the subject-role, matter is more important than soul, things/objects are more important than people.
Two Kinds of Luck (and Misfortune) in Two Kinds of Realities
“First I make you happy,” says the ideal “but then I will kill you!”
In the first reality rules the `holy spirit´. In the second-rate realities, something rules what one could call „ (un) holy substance”. The „holy spirit” is God1, is love. What, however, would be the „ (un) holy substance” after which we often thirst more than after the Holy Spirit? These are our +Its which are like drugs or symbionts in us, on which we are dependent because they give us something that we believe to need absolutely.
It is known, that endorphin and dopamine are being released in certain moments of joy. Those hormones can be compared to the substance that we can receive from our Its.
What do the two kinds of luck look like?
1. the actual luck: has no costs, comparable to luck through love.
2. strange ‘luck’ such as libido, ecstasy, rush, high, flow and thrill is addicting and therefore there is a cost.
That kind of luck is dependent on different substances, situations or people. They promise “speed” and “power”, they “boost”. The dynamics are marked with all-or-nothing, with a highly increasing +² curve, that is soon to be decreasing and to drop into the negative if there is no new “stuff” being given.
I believe that anything that is positively absolutized can cause an addiction.
Especially the non-substance addictions are underestimated!
[I heard again and again from job addicts that their job is their hobby and their fun. What could be wrong with that?]
Only the actual +A has no potential to be addicting and even gives heavenly luck.
P² can perceive happiness as misfortune or misfortune as happiness, as ‘black happiness’ (Victor Hugo) when the misfortune affects others.
Two Kinds of Misfortune:
In parallel, I am convinced that there are also two kinds of misfortune: the actual and the strange. By that I mean that we regard relative misfortune as absolute misfortune when we are dominated by a ‒sA / It.
An example would be the loss of the mentioned (pseudo-) absolute happiness. In itself, P¹ would not have to fear earthly misfortune.
The absolute misfortune is only the negative Absolute (‒A).
1. The Its desubjectivize, which means that P loses his/her first-rate subject-role.
The Its destroy or chain up personal connections.
2. The Its inverse, alienate and disorder P in his/her role as subject: They turn P into an object. → Subject-object-reversal).
P² appears as object. The Its make misconnections: Incoherent topics become coherent and vice versa.
3. The Its create personal hyper-subjects and function as such. (Also: Its create hyper-objects).
Here, an important characteristic of the It/sA, or the strange Self is represented. They now take the position of a quasi-personal, living subject and P/I on the other side, takes the position of an object – a situation that is typical for mental disorders.76 It is therefore not surprising that some people hear voices because the strange Ego represents a kind of new strange person or homunculus in the affected person.
This process can be referred to as subject-object-reversal because whatever is usually the object, became subject and whatever is usually the subject, became an object.77Likewise, one can also speak of a reversal of the living and the unliving or the personal and the unpersonal with similar consequences. This includes also the perpetrator-victim reversal – i.e. the victim is considered the perpetrator and the perpetrator as the victim. It is the (limited) ”victory” of the object over the subject, or the dictatorship of the objects. Who is actually acting, when someone says “I” am acting? Is it the I or is it an It?
The subject-object-reversal also causes a change of the characteristics of the new subject and the new object:
The original object does not become a “real” subject but a kind of subject, a second-rate subject. It plays the role of a subject but is not a real subject and can therefore be termed a “subjectoid” or “sobject” (meaning a pseudo-subject). Or the original object becomes a false object, a kind of “objectoid”. The same applies to the original subject, who can neither be a real subject nor a real object but becomes a second-class subject or object. Both are hermaphrodites.
As a rule, a second-rate subject (subjectoid) is an object of one’s own (or other people’s) ideals.
Such a second-rate subject can only see objects in other subjects and handles them as such.
A second-rate personal / ego is usually the object of his own (or other people’s) ideals.
Due to the subject-object-reversal, the original first-rate connection of subject-object is lost and a subject-object-splitting applies.
Besides the subject-object-splitting, there are subject-object-fusions, since the Its resp. strange-Selves cause splittings as well as fusions.
In relationships, the It mainly acts in the role of a (pseudo-)first-rate subject. That means that the It can directly cause processes, without P being able to influence it. In addition to dysfunctions, behavioral disorders are the result: behavior that is not (or only partially) influenced by P, so that the person feels powerless and controlled by extraneous power (especially in schizophrenia).
There is a parallel between subject-object splitting and God-world-splitting.
Disorder and Reversal of Bonding and Separation
“The It misconnects, replaces, separates.”
With that, there are disorders of connections/ relationships etc. on the one side, and separation, splitting etc. on the other side.
There are new, strange connections/ relationships. (E.g.,: there are new problems at places where they do not belong, solutions are brought up where there are no possible solutions etc.)
Loose relations become weldings, knots, chains: The Its create connections that are too stiff and automatic in shape of processes, procedures, automatisms etc. Examples: order and obedience; mistake and punishment; interpersonal: “tit-for-tat”, etc. There are also determinant connections that seem to be similar, such as it is described as chain of associations in psychoanalysis.
(Relative) separations, differences become absolute splittings or unrelatednesses.
Where there was a connection/relation, there is now separation. Where there were splitting and difference there is now fusion/welding. The associated symptoms play a major role in neurosis and psychosis (“craziness”). The “atypical connectivity” in autism could also arise in this way.
In the following paragraphs, I want to discuss some single aspects more detailed.
1. The Its destroy. There is a loss of first-rate personal all and nothing. (→ nihilism). It also isolates.
2. The Its inverse and alienate everything that is personal.
3. It can also totalize (generalize) P-parts. That means Its can create “hyper-everything”
About 1: The It wants everything for itself. It wants the whole person. If the person refuses, the It threatens P with the nothing.
The It claims the right of exclusiveness. Motto: “Whoever is not with me, is against me.”
The all says to Ego: “You are super good or bad.” And the Nothing says: “You are a nothing if you are not all!”
1. The Its profane. They negate and replace God1 and love. They cause a loss of transcendence, of God1, love and sense.
C. G. Jung was convinced that the “loss of soul and sense” was the main problem of the modern world. According to him, about one-third of his clients were affected by the “pointlessness and lack of relevance of their life”.
2. The Its of this aspect pervert and falsify transcendence (God1) and immanence (the “world”). On the other hand, earthly, worldly matters are being idolized or demonized. It is the “Victory of immanence over transcendence.”
If we live in inverted roles or worlds, we are people without heaven, without transcendence, without God1 whose foundations are undermined, only because we trust the strange more than the real and have for it got false gods and false devils.
Such as the subject-object-reversal, the God-world-reversal is not only connected to a negation and a change of God and world but also a God-world-splitting, or a God-world-fusion.
3. The Its may also cause an excessive and one-sided transcendence and immanence (→ asA).
The P-changes considering the three P²-areas in this aspect can be illustrated as follows:
1. The Its depersonalize P. The result is a loss of first-rate personality.
2. The Its inverse and alienate the person and the things. Therefore the things will dominate the person. “Victory of the things over the person”, KW: “factual constraint”.
3. The Its may cause hyper-personal or hyper-things.
About the Person-Thing-Reversal
An original thing has been personalized, whereas the person has been depersonalized and reified.
Therefore whatever used to be “thing” or “object”, is now personal and the other way around.
The person also feels like a thing (an instrument, machine, puppet etc.) and/or like a strange person (represented by the dominating It) and/or like a nobody. 78These characteristics, as also mentioned below, are found mainly in the schizophrenic psychoses.
The reversal leads to a mechanization of the person and to a humanization of the machine = alienation of the original human / alienation of the original machine.
Such as the subject-object-reversal, the person-thing-reversal does not only cause a negation and a change of person and thing and a person-thing-splitting, but it also causes a person-thing-fusion. (See more about `Person-It-reversal´ and The Subject-object-reversal´).
The following single aspects are part of the Summary table and are only discussed briefly.
All Its change the personal aspects (as already described) in three basic kinds of ways:
1. The Its negate the first-rate aspects.
2. The Its falsify (~) the aspects.
3. The Its cause specific hyper-forms.
The main effects of It are negation and falsification of the person.
Positive hyper-forms are especially found at the beginning of an inversion because they seduce the person.
One-dimensional It-effects are very rare. Most of the time, multiple, contradicting personal forms are created simultaneously.
The partly named ideologies stand for many, often still more important unnamed individual or familial ideologies! Further ideologies can be found in the Summary Table column E.
Here one can find the Ego-other inversion: Through an inversion, the Ego becomes like others and others become like me.
There is not only a negation and change of the Ego and the others, but also a split between the Ego and the others or the fusion of both. “Everyone is the other and nobody is himself” (M. Heidegger)
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 4.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: egocentrism, individualism / collectivism / non- / conformism.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓I, individuality/community → loss of I, loss of you ~ strange I|
↑ Ego (Super- or Hyper-Ego)
There is not only a negation and change of mind, soul and body, but also their reversal, division and fusion. For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 5.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: spiritism, psychologism, healthism, materialism, idealism.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓ spirit, body, mind → loss of spirit, body, mind|
~ strange spirit, body, mind
↑ hyper-forms, ideologies
The Its in this aspect represent above all new foreign determining “genders” or gender roles.
The Its appear mainly castrating or sexisting. To be more precise: The It has a castrating and negligent effect or too masculinizing or too femininizing or too sexualizing. There is a loss of actual sexuality, love or sexuality. The person becomes too neutral, sterile, asexual or hypersexualized or too masculine, too feminine or too hermaphrodite. The resulting deficits are partly compensated by substitute sexuality or love, by inverted gender roles.
There is not only a negation and change of the mentioned aspects, but also their reversal, division and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 6.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: macho / feminism / sexism / women- / men- hostile or absolutizing ideologies. (As a side effect possible through most ideologies). (→ Overly Equals and Opposites in Relationships).
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
feminized, masculinized sexualized
|↓ sex, love, gender → without sex, without love|
~ sex, love, gender e.g.,: spare-sex, spare-love
↑ hyper-forms (e.g.,: excessive sex)
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓ conditions, emotions → apathy/insensibility, sorrow|
~ compensatory-conditions, -emotions, inversed fear
↑ hyper-forms like thrill, kick etc.
The Its determine our feelings.
They forbid us to be happy without them. The It says, “Only with me, only when you have me, you can be happy.”
And we can’t just instantly and directly abolish the tyranny of the It and feel like we actually do are.
→ kicks, mini-manias also in everyday life and the opposite: depression, anxiety.’
There is not only a negation and change of feelings, but also a reversal and their division and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 7.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: hedonism, optimism / pessimism, materialism/ idealism esp. romanticism.
Here is also the problem of voluntariness.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms of will and motivations, but also a reversal of them and their splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 8.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: Voluntarism, partly Intentionalism / “no-go” ideologies, existential philosophies et al.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓ will, voluntariness, goal → abulia/lack of will|
~ mis-aspiration, false will, addiction
↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: hyperbulia, also addictions
Patient: “I am overwhelmed and buried again and again and have to dig my way out every day.”
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms of ownership, but also their reversal, division and merger.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 9.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: capitalism, mercantilism, asceticism.
See also Erich Fromm: Being and having.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓ ownership → lack, defaults|
~ false owning
↑ hyper-forms: overloading, hyperphagia
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 10.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: imperialism, behaviorism, pacifism et al.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓ possibility, power → powerlessness, weakness|
~ mis-conditioning, false ability
↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: “omnipotence”
It is not only the negation and change of the various forms, but also to their reversal, splitting and merging.
P² must maintain + fA and avoid −fA and nothing.
If P² does not achieve this goal, she will have to work harder until she collapses.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 11.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: dogmatism, bureaucratism, technocracy / anarchism.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|disordered disorganized forced,|
|↓ order, law → disorder, chaos|
~ false order, laws, necessities
↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: determination, being fixed
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|disorientated, distracted ;|
|↓ direction → lack of direction |
↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: moralism
At present, a ‘great distraction’ through a wide variety of media plays a special role.
Result: loss of orientation, overview, and disorientation; Or: one-sided, fixed orientations.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 12.The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: moralism (“duty men”),
legalism / anti-moralism et al..
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|blocked, inhibited |
|↓ rights, control, freedom → loss of control, inhibition|
~ compensatory-freedom/ -control
↑ hyper-forms: hyper-freedom, hyper-control
The resp. It inhibits, constricts / disengages, excessively exaggerates, does not regulate, it fails, also seduces, turns in circles.
P² becomes uninhibited, uncontrolled / disenfranchised, restricted, inflexible, uptight, over-controlled.
External and internal totalitarian systems also create unlawful spaces.
External systems: if, for example, someone in a totalitarian system opposed its ideology, he entered a lawless room, that is, he became disenfranchised.
Inwardly / intrapersonally: if P² violates a sA / super-ego, then she no longer has the right to mercy and the also unreasonable punishment follows.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 13.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes into question: liberalism, laissez-faire views / restrictive ideologies. ~ Lenin: “Trust is good, control is better.”
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 14.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: creationism / materialism, positivism.
See, for example, the excellent description of the loss of creativity by Peter M Rojcewicz in
(5) Existential Intimacy of Learning: A Noetic Turn from STEM | Peter M Rojcewicz -Academia.edu.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓ creativity → lack of creativity e.g.,: stereotypes |
~ false creations, ghosts
↑ hyper-forms: over-productions, excrescences
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|paralyzed, inactivated |
|↓ success, experience → inactivity ~ false deeds, compensatory-behavior, affectation|
↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: hyper-activity, hyper-kinesis
KW: Damned to be successful. Example: P² in the hamster wheel.
Here also: disturbed interplay of activity and passivity, work and rest or reversal of activity and passivity or of active and passive. Why? The sA do not let you calm down or paralyze you.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 15.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes: activism, utilitarianism, pragmatism /partly consumism, hedonism, coolness.
Disorder of information processing and emergence.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|not informed |
misinformed, lied to
too sophisticated, precocious
|↓ Information, certainty → defective vision |
~ false information
↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: isolated knowledge, one-sided information
If the It experiences no resistance or is not corrected, it transmits its information to the carrier.There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their splitting, fusion, and reversal.
Thus, for example, according to the “law of the formation of opposites”, an absolutized rationality (including scientificity *) will generate irrationality. Being overwhelmed with information (hyperinformation) currently plays a major role. Result: counter-regulation with a call for the great simplifiers.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 16.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: rationalism, scientism, gnosticism / skepticism, anti-rationalism.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|suppressed, masked |
|↓ expression, openness → mutism, reticence |
~ false expressions, e.g.,: language, travesties, enemy images
↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: hyper-mime
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 17.The main causes are following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: exhibitionism, occultism, esotericism et al.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓ Meanings, values dignity → loss of them|
~ disorder of self-esteem
↑ hyper-forms: e.g.,: overvalue, delusion
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 18.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes: Elitist thinking and behavior, society with wrong values (e.g. code of honor) / without values, egalitarianism et al.
‘So we beat on, boats against the current, but it drives us steadily back, towards the past.’
(Adapted from Scott Fitzgerald)
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓ past → lack of experience, immaturity |
~ false memories, false past
↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: isolated memories, hypermnesia
The Its can act like `sleepers´ that are resting for decades until they become active all of a sudden.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 19.
Possible ideologies: conservatism, empiricism, traditionalism, also modernism.
“Anyone who marries the zeitgeist will soon be a widower!” (Søren Kierkegaard)
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
falsely calmed down
|↓ Time, calmness → loss of time, of calmness, of peace|
~ false dealing / conceiving with time and present
↑ hyper-forms: compulsion, harassment
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
Example: “All of humanity’s problems stem from man’s inability to sit quietly in a room alone …There is nothing more unbearable for a human being than being in complete calmness, without distractions, business and tasks. Then the person can feel the nothingness, the forlornness, the dependence, the powerlessness, the emptiness.”( (Blaise Pascal) 79Blaise Pascal cit. by Lorenz Marti: Wie schnürt ein Mystiker seine Schuhe?; Herder 2006, p. 92.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 20.
Possible ideologies: Carpe-Diem-Ideology, modernism, actualism et al.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓ perspective → hopelessness|
~ fear of future
↑ hyper-forms: Utopia
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
E.g., self-fulfilling prophecy, progress trap.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 21.
Possible ideologies: Utopianism, progressivism /apocalypse, fatalistic ideologies.
|P becomes||loss and replacement|
|↓ correction, compensation → loss of corrections/compensations|
~ too much or false guilt
↑ hyper-forms: hyper-correctness
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion. For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 22.
Possible ideologies: Perfectionism, aestheticism, also: Laissez-faire-ideologies.
|It is||P becomes||loss and replacement|
|aggressive, sadistic |
|↓ protection, peace → loss of protection, vulnerability ~ many defense mechanisms|
↑ hyper-forms: armoring
Possible ideologies: pacifism/militarism.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 23.
The disorder or weakness of the personal defense is one of the main topics in psycho-analysis.
Due to (almost) all Its, the defense becomes either
a) weakened or broken off or
b) alienated, displaced, distorted or
c) exaggerated such as an armor/ hardening.
Those disorders of defense happen in parts, where P does not experience unconditional love and acceptance. P will feel threatened by any person or situation that questions his sA because he has identified with this sA. Therefore P would take it personally if anything questions his sA.
Further explanations see in the segment ‘Defense and anticathexis´ later.
If there is (for example) a person, such as the father, who becomes absolute for me, then there will be a new It within me, that is made up as follows:
In the center there is the It “father”, symbolized by the Yin-Yang ☯ * – split into +sS on top [sS = strange Self] and repressed ‒sS below; both with their inverse sides. (0 part is not shown). That It has its own territory, that has been created like a new strange system around the center “father”. Therefore, we have a new strange Absolute resp. Self, surrounded by areas that are subordinated. We have already found that a new Absolute/ Self affects more or less all aspects of its sphere. Especially the ones that are the closest to “father” will be affected. On the other hand, every other differentiation aspect would also have to resonate. That means that whenever that It is activated it is always about “father” or the father image within me but also about all the other connected aspects. That on the other hand means: It is also about the past, the present, the future, gender, meanings, information, and so on – eventually about everything that was represented by “father”. To put in other words: All aspects that are dominated by the It, will be changed more or less.
Especially those aspects that are the most similar to It, will be changed the most.
But there will also be the mentioned repressed ‒sS: repressed antipathy against the father (because the own Self is being neglected).
*In my opinion, the yin-yang symbol in the middle represents the characteristics of sS/It in equilibrium very well.
• All Its do not only change our being but along with that they also change our worldview and the way we experience the world.
The person becomes primarily like his/her It/sA and is only secondarily itself. 80Otherwise, P becomes to contrary, or to 0. See later too.
They change P according to the all-or-nothing-principle, black-or-white, pro-or-contra, + or ‒.
We saw that +sA, ‒sA and 0 are three parts of the same “thing”, the It. In the beginning, it mostly changes the person towards the strange positive. That means that the person feels subjectively very well, identical, strong, competent and so on, without actually being it.
At the same time, the person is increasingly frightened and threatened by the contrary ‒It/sA, without there being a threat that is actually so bad.
• The +It (resp. the +sA part) may give the person an absolutely positive feeling:
A feeling of absoluteness, self-awareness, self-assurance, total love, feeling of an actual positive being and life, sense, feeling of power, feeling of I-strength, freedom, wealth, health, eternity, the feeling of an exact orientation, clear differentiation of good and bad, precise knowledge of morals and values, exact differentiation of who is a friend and who is an enemy and so on – all to an extent which is not equal to reality but we would like to live with it. The +Its promise us what we long for in the depth of our soul without actually keeping the promise. They change our personality so that we see everything in their light, act in their name to receive what they promise. But they deceive us and we have to pay a price for that. On the other hand they do not deceive us totally. That is because they are neither absolutely positive nor absolutely negative but ambivalent.
• The ‒Its (resp. the ‒sA parts) threaten us with what we fear the most. Usually that is the opposite of the +It-promises. They threaten us with death, sickness, powerlessness, loneliness, poverty, withdrawal of love, enemyship – without there being a corresponding reason for it. They present themselves as unbeatable enemies, as devil, as ‒A. They also change our personality so that we become frightened, too careful, fearful and so on. Here, we also have to pay a high price, which becomes even higher the more the ‒It is actually relatively positive. But they help us against the disadvantages of +Its.
• The 0 Its (resp. the 0 parts), that appear to be like an empty face compared to the other two It-parts, negate the personal aspects.
Or they create a contrary false All/ everything. But they help us in the form of repression.
We already realized that all Its have three parts and therefore act in many different (contradicting) ways.
• Whenever contradicting Its are developed, they confuse us because they are paradoxical, tend to divide and cause double bonds. The person faces very different and contradicting information and signals given by the same It (person, situation). Looking at the arguments of two opposing P² (resp. their Its) from a second-rate perspective (from W²’s point of view), both are right in their arguments. That fact is the reason for many conflicts such as the ones in marriage. Every marriage counselor can tell stories about how frustrating a discussion can be in that case – especially because both sides are right – but they are only relatively right, since most of the time, the higher, first-rate view is missing: the view, that allows the person to understand the other person’s position. |
Examples for contradicting It-effects:
Helpers* cause hyper-help or helplessness or indifference.
Moralists* cause hyper-morality or immorality or indifference.
Right-wing extremists* cause more right-wing extremists
or left-wing extremists or indifferent people.
Asceticism* causes more asceticism or gluttony or indifference.
Altruism* causes/supports new exaggerated altruism or egoism or indifference.
Self-centeredness* causes/supports new selfishness
or altruism or indifference.
Truth-fanaticism* causes new exaggerated truth-fanaticism
or lies or indifference etc.81The * is to reiterate that it is absolutized.
Fig. The main effects of three opposing Its and their parts on the person.
(Dashed lines represent opposite effects, solid lines represent equal effects.).
P is a cue ball of various It effects. The Its are each other´s enemies or friends but they stick together against P and ultimately exploit P. Method: carrot and stick.
The ‒sA (right), for example, makes P much afraid and drives P into the arms of his opponent, the + sA (left).
This appears as a savior because it is the opposite of the ‒sA. P jumps out of the frying pan into the fire and must bleed everywhere.
For more remarks, see: ‘Overview of all It- valences‘ and `It-parts, opposites´.
Synonyms of strange I: Ego, second-rate I, I².
The explication refers to the strange-I, as well as the strange you (you²) and strange we².
In the following paragraphs, I want to discuss the emergence of I² under the influence of It/sA briefly.
The effects of the It/sA on the I are the same as the ones on the person (as discussed above).
If you transfer the main effects given onto the ‘I’, the following picture will be created:82For didactic reasons I go out from the first person singular.
P causes a misabsolutization or adopts one from the outside (mostly unknowingly). With that, something becomes all or nothing, pro or contra, positive or negative in the absolute understanding. These parts create a strange I (Ego) but also a contra-strange-I (Anti-Ego) and a non-I. This process, which at first only took place on the mental-spiritual plane, is then “materialized”, that is, to something material as an It. Now, the I is dominated by the It and therefore the I becomes more like the It – while the It becomes like the I.
As I said, this process is usually not conscious since strange Absolutes resp. strange Selves have usually already established in childhood or, as I believe, even prenatal – and we are identified with them and they dominate and change us and generate strange Ego-spheres in us. Fortunately, those changes are only partial, which is an important fact for therapy. As mentioned multiple times before, it is also important to know that the strange Selves and their Egos are not solely negative but that they also have positive parts. They are more or less ambivalent, paradoxical and illogical. They are the main components of various mental disorders.
Here more about the used → Classification
For a change, I use `Ego´ or I² for the strange I.
(² means second-rate).
• Hyper-Ego = Ego, dominated by pro,+ sA. 83Hyper-ego has a different meaning here than Freud´s Super-ego.
• Anti-Ego = Ego, dominated by contra, ‒ sA.
• Non-Ego (Non-I) = Ego, dominated by nothingness.
‘Ego’ means strange-I (I²). ‘Ego’ does not indicate an egoistic person but a person whose I is controlled by an It/sA and therefore lives in an unfavorable situation – especially under the pressure of being in charge of everything and not being able to rest. That I² is constantly switching positions between the three parts of the It ( , ‒, 0), what I also call `imprisoned in the psychical Bermuda Triangle´. 84H. von Hofmannsthal, for example, speaks of the “threats,” the “temptations,” and the “seductions of life,” which the ego desires to escape from “inner solitude and loneliness.” (Cit. by Epilogue to “The Stories”, TB Insel-Verlag, p.378),
Ibid., p.380, he speaks of the danger that the ego will lose love.
However, it has only a relative role for the first-rate I-self.
With the establishment of strange Selves resp. Its, something becomes too absolute (absolutistic) and the person becomes relative or irrelevant; something becomes too unconditional and the person only conditional; something becomes too primary, too important and the person too secondary, too unimportant; something becomes too independent and the person becomes dependent; something becomes the center and the person becomes a minor role; something becomes a subject and the person its object; something controls the person and the person does not control something anymore; something becomes too real and the person is no longer real; something strange becomes personal and what is actually personal becomes material, less personal, dehumanized, dividable; something lifeless becomes alive and the affected person becomes lifeless, an object is humanized and the person becomes an object.
One can also formulate: This is a “victory of the Relative over the Absolute”, a “victory of matter over spirit”, “victory of objects over subjects”, “victory of things over the person”, “victory of the strange over the Self ”, “victory of the splitting over the unity”, “victory of dependence over independence”, “victory of It over I”. (Fortunately, the “victories” are only partially and temporary.)
Attentive readers have probably already realized that some of the mentioned changes represent basic patterns of mental disorders. In other words: a basic disorder has developed that is typical of psychogenic diseases. ( S. Freud’s view that the ego is not master in its own house seems similar, but only partially corresponds to my opinion.) What are the characteristics of this basic disorder?
Specially: The priority of the human towards the objects is lost. That means: many people did not grow up as subjects, as unique individuals but as objects that have to fulfill specific assignments and roles.
Fortunately, the reversal of person and It is only relatively, even if the person experiences the Its as absolutely. 85Absolutely is only the split of +A and ‒A.
Concretely that indicates that the person never turns fully into the It, never becomes an object or a function (of the It) entirely. Vice versa, the internalized strange Absolute (resp. It) never fully becomes the person, subject nor comes truly alive.
There will always be ‘healthy parts’ remaining within us that are too strong, even if we are very ill or manipulated. It is a philosophical or religious question, why it is that way. We will come back to that question at a later point.
“How real is reality?” (Paul Watzlawick)
“The reality we can put into words is never reality itself …” (Werner Heisenberg)
It is normal for our world that there are many, very different and contradicting realities. That also applies to the person and the psyche, although we usually expect that there is only one will, one mindset, one feeling (and so on) for a certain person regarding a certain topic.
That juxtaposition of various, very different realities, has always awaked great interest of humanity. 86For the sake of change, I use different terms for a situation. For example, The terms ‘worlds’, ‘realities’, or ‘systems’ are essentially synonymous.
They can be personal or non-personal.
– As an example, the doctrine of the two kingdoms by Luther.
– Kierkegaard posited the human being to be a synthesis of opposing elements, of “the infinite
and the finite, and the temporal and eternal, of freedom and necessity”. 87 https://academyofideas.com/2015/05/introduction-to-kierkegaard-the-religious-solution/ , 2019.
– Boris Pasternak: “Everything that happens takes place, not only on earth, in which the dead are buried but somewhere else, that some call the Kingdom of God1, others history, and still others something else again.” 88Boris Pasternak: „Doktor Schiwago“.
As stated several times, I distinguish between a first-rate and many second-rate realities. Typical of the second-rate realities is the juxtaposition of opposites, which are experienced as incompatible. Overall, WPI 89WPI means World, person and I. does not consist of purely first-rate or purely second-rate realities but a mixture of both. Both forms of reality are relatively opposite. There is only an absolute opposite between +A and ‒A.
Therefore it is normal that a person experiences him-/herself and the existent reality as relatively strange.
W. Blankenburg called the `loss of natural self-evidentness’ as a sign of schizophrenia (1971), but that affects us all since we have lost the paradise and not just `schizophrenics´. As a sign of schizophrenia, one may only ascertain a predominant loss of natural self-evidentness (corresponding to a predominant loss of the first-rate Self in the sense of this work).90 In: Der Verlust der natürlichen Selbstverständlichkeit. Berlin, Parodos, 1971.
It would not be normal if a person experiences reality only as one actual reality because our world, as well as people, are also ‘built’ in strange structures. In this sense there are double-worlds resp. plural-worlds.
This applies to both personal and non-personal realities / worlds: e.g. Two (or several) different beings, two kinds of life, two happiness, two misfortunes, two different contexts, etc., which, as said, are not completely separated. 91See also the juxtaposition of contradictions in schizophrenic psychoses. Unambiguous are only +A and ‒A, although that is not provable. Everything else is relatively exact-inexact; only describable relatively, relationally or comparatively.
(About the juxtaposition of opposite sA/It and their dynamic see Double-Bind Theory.)
Note: The following characterization of the second-rate realities is ideal-typical, for these W² are always permeated by more or less 1st reality.92W is here also for WPI alltogether.
There are only the most important aspects presented in the following listing:
• The second-rate realities are strange, non-actual and more unrealistic than W¹.
W¹ is the realistic, actual reality. The first positive world can also be called heaven and the first negative world hell.
• The second-rate worlds are intermediate worlds. They touch heaven on the one side and on the other side they touch hell.
• W² is complicated, divided and also too homogeneous. W¹ is more an infinitely varied whole.
• The second-rate worlds have three divided main dimensions: +*, ‒* and 0* resp. pro*, contra* and zero*. The +first world only has one determined main dimension, the +A¹.
• The R-parts in W² have to function. Otherwise, they will be replaced immediately.
The first world is undivided and integrates its relative-sphere, which is also undivided but varied. R will not be replaced if it does not work. It is integrated and protected in a bigger wholeness.
• In W², everything has multiple meanings, is multicausal and so on. Only the first reality is definite, unambiguous and unicausal in the end.93Similar Rainer Maria Rilke: “that we are not really at home in the interpreted world.” In `First Duino Elegy´
• In W² dependence reigns while W¹ is determined by freedom.
• The It/sA of the second realities act mainly disturbingly and negatively. The +A of the first reality can be experienced as negatively now and then but always follows a positive goal.
• The second realities, are each other´s enemies or false friends or do not care. In the first reality, the elements are friendly with each other although they can be critical.
• In the second realities, the things and functionalities dominate. The first reality is dominated by a lively and voluntary spirit, also called the Holy Spirit.
• In the second realities, there is much fear, jealousy and competition. They can be compared to armies, where orders are made that have to be followed or else there will be punishment. In the first reality love dominates. There are no commands but orientation. It is not made up in a strict nor in a hierarchic way.
• The second realities mostly work like machines. Laws and rules are common, comparable to the ones in physics/mechanics (or there is chaos). The priority of the first reality is freedom, personality and creativity.
• The second realities are opposed to the first and cannot integrate it. The first reality can integrate the second realities and tries to correct them without fighting them. The divine permeates all worldly things (except the ‒A), without being identical with it. E.g. Jesus has gone to the last corner of the world (W²), without being equal to it.
• W² needs “food” and supplies because their sA are hungry. The sA, as centers of WPI² always want to have/receive. They are pseudo-autonomous but also hyper-dependent. +A (God1, love) also gives without being asked and is autonomous. W¹ is satiated.
• W² has reversed sides. W¹ has no reversed sides.
• One symbol of the second worlds is the ellipse to indicate the unroundness. The yin-yang symbol [ indicates a yet balanced center of second-rate realities. The first world can be symbolized with a circle or a sphere. There are fluent lines and every point on the sphere is a center. There is no front and no back.
• The dynamics in W² are determined by strange Absolutes (sA). Those Absolutes tend to create short-term highs in the beginning, followed by long-term lows. The dynamics in W¹ are determined by +A. On transition to W¹, there is often a short down in the beginning, which usually cause some resistance, followed by a stable positive phase.
• In W² there are only a few nuances, small ranges. Everything is determined by the all-or-nothing-principle.
An overview of the nature of second-rate realities can be found in Summary table in column N.
For simplicity I write sometimes instead of first-rate only first or ¹, and instead of second-rate only second or ².
In W¹, there is a coexistence of the relative-parts. There are a lot of nuances. W¹ integrates all relative-parts, also the sA.
|The first-rate reality, which ranges from +A to ‒A, represents a continuum with countless nuances.||The relative-area in W² between a +sA and a ‒sA however, shows no continuum but only black and white, resp. all-or-nothing parts.|
Atheistic worldviews mainly describe second-rate worlds. For example: Freud, Marx, Darwin, Buddhism, partly even humanistic ideologies. They describe the world mainly as materialistic, mechanical, dialectic, or dualistic and deterministic. The focus is on the relativistic or the absolutistic. They no longer see the transcendence, the mysterious, the wonderful, the creative, the immeasurable, the spiritual because it is not to catch directly and is not provable. Max Weber called it the “demystification of the modern world”.
Examples: Psychoanalysis understands the characteristics of a person only as existence of second-rate realities, or second-rate personal aspects. The three main instances of Freud (Ego, Super-Ego and Id) are instances of an alienated, or ill person. They are defined accordingly. S. Freud uses typically many mechanical terms such as the “psychic apparatus” and the human being as an “object”.
Further authors, who use that “language of the second-rate realities” are – as mentioned – Marx (“The human being is a product of the social circumstances”) and other materialists or behavior therapists, that view the person mainly under the aspect of the stimulus-response-model.
Language and terms of the first-rate reality are adequate and clear. However, as I said, our world is not only made out of the first-rate reality and is therefore not definitely definable.
Usually, second-rate realities can be recognized by absolute obligations (`musts´), which gives us humans a temporary feeling of orientation and safety but overstraining in the long run. These obligations are usually caused by sA, that control and force us. Are not most of the tragedies based on the feeling of such obligations, the feeling that we definitely have to do a certain thing which leads us into radicalization, absolutization and greed? It can also be compared to a kind of blackmailing, as in: “You have to do that, otherwise I will take your +sA and replace it with a ‒sA.” Relative problems are then taken personally. Especially in conflicts or war, everything becomes extreme which makes the sA visible.
There is a certain point where it is always about all-or-nothing, pro or contra. At that point, desertion is hardly possible for the person. The person does not have much of a choice anymore. The situation of a mentally ill person is similar.
– The strange Self (sS) can replace the Self in a certain kind and we seem to have direct access
– A strange Self can cause +hyper-effects, even if one must pay a very high price for that.
– A strange Self promises an absolute power of control over the world, other people and the
– With a strange Self, the disadvantages of another strange Self can be balanced.
In contrast to the advantages of the strange-Selves, the “disadvantages” of the actual Self are listed here.
Although the first-rate reality includes a +Self without any cost, it also means that
– The Self cannot be increased any further, otherwise it becomes an inflated strange Self.
– Besides the possibility of actively choosing such Self, one does not have any other kind of control over the Self because it controls itself. The sS appears to be controllable even though it is really not.
– The unconditional right of self-determination which is part of the Self also includes self-responsibility. We like the first, the second is reluctant.
– All people have this actual Self if they choose it. That means that no person has the right to higher themselves over another person.
– The Self is part of transcendence, God1 and final subjects such as death. We like to repress that.
– We must also say farewell to the idea that good deeds would have necessarily good consequences and bad deeds necessarily bad effects.
All of us, healthy or ill, live in inverted inner and outer worlds full of paradoxes.
The wife of the Russian author Lew Tolstoi writes in her diary on 10/25/1886:
“It sounds strange but the last two months, when Lev Nikolaevich was ill, were the last happy time for me. I was fortunate to be able to nurture him day and night had a task whose meaning could not be doubted, the only one that I am capable of sacrificing myself for the loved one. I was all the happier the more burdensome I felt.” 94S. A. Tolstoja „Tagebücher, I. Band. p 121, Rütten und Loening, Berlin 1988.
But that kind of luck could only be temporary and finally made room for depression and hate. The more Tolstroi’s wife sacrificed herself for him, the more she had to hate him because through that kind of love she bled dry. That hate-love accompanied her for her entire life. When he was ill she could be happy for two reasons:
First because she could fulfill her ideal of self-sacrifice. Second because her aggressive feelings towards him were satisfied by his illness.
Such as Goethe, Hölderlin also complained, how hard it is to bear luck.
Apostle Paul writes that he has badly acted even though he did not want to.
L. Völker published a book entitled “Come, holy melancholy” with poems by various poets that describe the advantages of sadness and depression. 95Edit. by Ludwig Völker: „Komm, heilige Melancholie“ Reclam, Stuttgart 1983. The contradiction of preferring the negative to the positive appears in many different variations. They range from everyday paradoxes and contradictions to severe self-torture and self-destruction that still seem positive. They always appear mysterious and shocking, fascinating and terrible at the same time. Although we promised to do better next time, we repeat our wrong behavior because of these strange inner powers.
How does it happen that we prefer the negative over the positive?
Why do we destroy something we love, or love something although we hate it?
Why do we sometimes do the opposite of what we really want to do?
How can there be opposite feelings at the same time?
Why do some people love others that are exploitative and humiliating?
Why does a woman marry a drinker again, even though the first marriage was a martyrium?
Why do we seek problems, instead of being happy that there are presently no problems?
Why do we even seek the sorrow and fear the luck?
How come that people want to be sick than healthy, better dead than alive, dependent than independent?
How do we understand that people feel pleasure when they are beaten?
Why are there people that hold on to a craze that is obviously absurd?
Hundreds of such questions could be asked. In the depth, they question all our Self resp. our Absolutnesses and can only be answered there.
A short answer: If the +A or the Self has a priority over the Relative, then there are no such contradictions. Only relative contradictions can exist which are resolved in the larger context of +A/Self. However, when the Relative replaces the Absolute or the Self, a reverse and more or less paradoxical world is created. Positive things like health become negative and negative ones like illness become positive and so on.
One finds the same phenomena in second-rate general and second-rate personal spheres (P²).
Here and there we find similarities: external and internal oppression, coercion, persecution, external and internal imprisonment, here dictatorship and there depression etc.
The difference is that P² is his own offender and victim at the same time. Commanding voices and all other totalitarian characteristics can be found both in the person concerned and in a particular outside world. Many patients adapted such totalitarian instances from their environment.
There is also a parallel between the thoughts of a mentally ill person and the language of a totalitarian system, as e.g., Victor Klemperer described in his book “LTI”.
• The first and the strange, second-rate realities (WPI¹ / WPI²) have very different dynamics.96Hints:
1. I use the terms `strange´ and ‘second-rate’ (²) synonymously.
2. Where it is clear that it is a second-rate issue, I leave away the label `²’ frequently for the sake of simplicity.
• The dynamics of WPI¹ or WPI² are determined by their Absolutes.
• Structures and dynamics of the first-rate WPI are clear and uniquely.
• Structures and dynamics of WPI² are ambiguous. WPI² has two main dynamics and two main results: all² or nothing². If we differentiate all² again, we will have three main dynamics with three main results (all) pro² / (all) contra² and 0².
• So, in the second-rate dynamics, we can find 1. strengthening (amplification), 2. opposite, contradicting dynamics (similar Newton’s third law: action = reaction) and 3. “0 dynamics” (standstill).
• Pro-, Contra-, and 0 dynamics can change abruptly turn to the opposite.
(→ `Reversal into the opposite´) or “mix” (Similar “drive mix” by S. Freud).
• One finds these dynamics in both social and individual processes. The paradoxical character of the Its makes it possible that multiple systems sometimes facing each other as enemies, sometimes act with each other and in a third case, annul each other.
It/sA97sA and It I use synonymously here. I remember: It consists of three opposing sA (+ sA, ‒sA and 0) I write `sA/ It´ if I want to emphasize the strange character of the Absolute and `It/sA´ if it does not matter. are (partly) autopoietic systems and have their own lives (such as parasites). They tend to decay. Alone they have only a temporary existence. They need a constant supply of the host to keep alive.
Its/sA are based on the principle of all-or-nothing. If they cannot be the all, they will not work. At first, they try to be all the best for the host (system, human), to seduce them to live from them. That only lasts as long as the host plays along. But the host (usually us humans) believes not to be able to survive without the Its/sA – since they are of top priority for him. But in reality¹, the Its/sA are more dependent on the host/ the human than the human on the It/sA.
If the hosting system does not “feed” an It/sA anymore, or frees itself from the It/sA, the It/sA is unfortunately not automatically dead.
Since its survival is the priority, every It/sA sacrifices its own Relatives, its own “people”, ruthlessly like a dictator.
The own “people” even sacrifice themselves for the It/sA since it is their Absolute.
Those mechanisms may appear within a society or within an individual.
More details can be found in: Symbiosis and parasitism between It and P² .
• Like the second-rate dynamics in general, the interactions in W² are also determined by their strange Absolutes (sA resp. Its).
• The +A is always effective in the W², even if it does not dominate. +A and its +R¹ are related to the sA/It in relative opposition, so that, as in W² themselves, this also creates a latent long-term conflict (with continuous stress). Therefore it can come at any time to a “revolt” of the Relatives against their oppressive Absolutes. Examples: rebellion of the oppressed against their oppressors (e.g. revolutions), rebellion of the masses against elites, rebellion of the truth against the lies, etc. (psychologically as well as socially).
• Different sA/ Its and their systems have the same, or opposite, or 0 direction of impact and may strengthen, fight or annul each other.
• Larger complexes arise whenever two or many Its are connected.
They usually occur as pacts, enmities or indifferent complexes.
They are rigid but may turn into the opposite quickly. (→ `Reversal into the opposite´)
• The interaction of the It/sA and the maintenance of their balance always requires sacrifices.
Similar to the interaction possibilities between different It (→ It-parts, opposites, fusions and negations) all possible interactions between 2 W² resp. different systems² are shown in the following graphic.
(Here I only give an overview, which I discuss in more detail regarding personal interactions in the section “Complex personal dynamics and relationship disorders “ as well as in the unabridged version.)
The figure shows the interaction-possibilities between two It-dominated W² units. Each of the W² has 3 parts with 3 sides (here represented by 3 triangles with 3 different connotations, see `It as nine-sided triad´).
On the left, there are two opposing W², the valences of which are interlocked like gears and on the right two W², whose valences are commutated. In both cases, the two W² can form a pact, or opposites or annulments will arise as soon as the connotation of a part changes.
W² can be anything psychical relevant, determined by an It.
These can be certain ‘worlds’, persons, I (WPI) or parts of them.
As said, I will discuss the personal interactions later. I believe, however, that the interactions in larger systems follow the same principles.
Example: Within certain societies, certain ideologies will complement and strengthen each other, or they may be in opposition to each other. This creates both pacts / alliances as well as hostilities / conflicts or both side by side in equilibrium, depending on how the corresponding parts are connoted. They are rigid and unstable at the same time, and can always form new constellations at any time, or even turn into their opposite.
Based on this symbolic picture (Fig. 43), imagine how different ideologies can interfere with each other.
If, for example, the disadvantages of an ideological trend (in this case of an absolutistic ideology) 98`Absolutisms’ functions here as a collective concept for ideologies that have absolutized a mental attitude. become ever greater then they cause automatically a counter-direction, which than determines the zeitgeist and a society.
(See also `Reversal into the opposite´.)
Philosophical / ideological trends alternate. Often, the opposite occurs. Deficits of old views become more and more clear and are offset by opposing ones or replaced by co-forms. (Ideology * → co- or counter-ideologies).
Absolutisms are followed by relativistic and / or nihilistic trends and if these had been exhausted, they are replaced again by new opposing currents. Concrete example: Zarism → nihilism and anarchy → collectivism → new autocracy.
Since all ideologies and philosophies have deficits, the game is endless. That is why whole societies are perishing like individuals.
In this publication, I distinguish:
– One It = simplest complex.
– Double or multiple complexes consisting of two or more Its. 99In psychiatric terminology, a complex is often stated as consisting of 2 opposites, e.g. Father Son C. or whores-saint-C. etc.
– Hypercomplexes networks consisting of many Its.
To the location:
– Complexes within a person.
– Interpersonal complexes = “relationship-complexes” (See also ‘Relationship disorders‘).
– Social complexes.
I think that the structures of the different complexes are similar, despite very different contents. That means that individual or interpersonal (familiar, social) complexes are similar.
C. G. Jung understood `complex’ much like me as a “Group of largely repressed ideas, which are connected as a cohesive whole and influence the thinking, feeling and action of the individual by eliminating a conscious control.”100Peters, Lexikon Psychiatrie…,see Bibliography.
Based on the idea of this publication, one can say: All Its can create such complexes with each other. They then lead to by C. G. Jung described and other consequences.
Whenever personal (or other) Its and their systems react with each other, the following complexes can be created:
• complex pacts (Syn.: symbioses, collusions, mergers, fusions) – with connections (bonds)
that are too tight,
• complex opponents (Syn.: enmities, collisions) – with splittings (divisions),
• neutral complexes (Syn.: 0-complexes or liquidations) – with dissolution or repression
• mixed complexes.
In the unabridged German version you can find more details about the complexes of other specialties because there are further similarities with psychical complexes: e.g., with chemical complexes, chaos theory, analogies in physics.
The pr complexes either show a stiff hierarchic structure, or they appear chaotic.
Here examples for pacts:
Its, or complexes, that are organized as pacts (have vectors with the same direction) stick together such as chains, which also explains certain chain-reactions and domino-effects in the second-rate realities.
Notes about the Transference occur through the It/sA. Transference may occur from any pr unit to another pr unit.
Example: Transference from W² to P², from P² to another P², or P.
Such as in psychoanalysis it can be differentiated between: positive and negative transference.
Relative transferences (= influences) have to be viewed separately.
Two illustrations that show different aspects of transference.
We can find regarding the complexes:
• Self-organization/ autopoiesis.
• Processes: From order to chaos and from chaos to order.
• Relativization of the principle of causality: “Equal causes cause equal effects.”
• Low or fixed predictability.
• Interior and exterior interactions.
• A complex is never completely satisfied. There is always a tendency to expand at the
expense of others, or it is “gorged” by others.
• Complex-phases are just like It-phases.
This chapter is based on knowledge of the previous sections. However, I will try to repeat the most important matters. This is now about the personal dynamics of second-rate parts of persons which I labeled with P² or only with P here. 101More exactly: I label the first-rate P with P¹, the second rate often only with P or P² if the connotation is important.
The It became part of the person, although it is something strange for the person at the same time. That makes it hard to understand the dynamics. The person can identify him-/herself with the It and function as his/her It as well as be an opponent of the It as something strange. To be exact, P² does both: P² is always more or less identified with the It or faces it as an opponent. Therefore, P² never has a definite identity. P² can never find peace in him/herself because the It or the complex that determines P² does not rest either. The It is unstable. It has to make sure that the interior powers are controlled and also guarantee that it steadily gains new input (“food”) from the outside to stay alive.
• General characteristics of the P²-dynamics: They are more inadequate, heteronomous, “shifted”, disordered, unconscious, passive, functional, automatic, artificial, contradicting and paradoxical compared with the first-rate dynamics.
• Their directions are: too pro, too contra or too 0. (See `Summary table´ column Q).
• Instead of free life, P is now dominated by strange processes. As long as the person is dominated by the It,
• P has to do whatever It determines. P has to act, think, realize, function the way It wants to. Although P still has some choice,
P cannot destroy the It immediately by an act of will because It has been materialized.
• The “primary processes” (Freud) are similar to the second-rate dynamics.
• The first-rate dynamics are clear and unambiguously.
• No person shows solely first-rate behavior because no person can behave absolutely definite and unambiguously. There are always P²-parts which also affect the behavior.
P between +A and sA
P stands between the advantages and disadvantages of the +A and the +sA.
Short to advantages of +sA: Emergence of + hyperforms. P gets +* . (E.g., see Summary table column N, line ↑)
Disadvantages see last section. → P reacts with defense mechanisms.
Advantages of +A: + `Meta-help´ (redemption, salvation, etc.). Disadvantage: no + hyperforms, withdrawal. → P reacts with Resistance.
Therapeutically important: The +A does not leave P alone when disturbed by the sA.
F. Hölderlin: “Where there is danger, the saving also grows!”
Second-rate personal dynamics become damaging (for the person concerned or others) in the long run.
P² dynamics to the outside harm especially other people, P² dynamics in the person harm especially the person himself. Of the latter, in turn, the dynamics in which P functions in the role of an It are more damaging to environment and the ‘victim dynamics’ are self-injurious, whereas addictions, defenses, and repression mechanisms make both.
Interaction with the It will be even more expensive for P, the more strange and dissimilar the strange Absolute is in comparison to the actual Absolute that is being replaced.
In the beginning, there is a symbiosis between +It and P. Both sides give and take. Metaphorically, you can say: The Ps give their blood to the Its and in return, the +Its give P drugs and safety² against ‒sA, which were created by themselves. Both need each other. In reality, the Its depend on P; P however only depends on the It/sA mainly in a subjective way. (That fact is important for therapy).
They are both connected with some sort of hate-love. They “love” each other with “libido”, as long as they give each other whatever the other one needs. P² needs It as compensatory-Absolute because P² does not live from the actual Absolute. At the same time, the It needs P² as host. Enmity and hate appear, whenever one (or both) of them do not fulfill their symbiotic role anymore. The It will put P under pressure and tyrannize P when P does not function the way It expects, especially if P tries to become the master of the own house again. That is a typical situation for P to become ill. However, if P is able to free him-/herself from the It(s), the It dies, whereas P survives. On the other hand, P is subjectively so dependent on the Its that he/she often prefers to die him/herself instead of letting die the Its, since the Its became his/her new Absolutes. Then suicide is the last logical consequence of this situation.
The interactions of It/sA and persons show noticeable parallels with symbiosis and parasitism.
Almost every characteristic of a parasite also applies to the It. (More in the abridged German version).
The following topics are discussed below:
1. P²-dynamics in identification with an It, or an It-part.
2. P²-dynamics towards an It or an It-part.
3. P²-dynamics, that show P² in a victim role.
I have listed, point 1 and 2 corresponding ‘secondary reactions’ in the Summary table in column ‘P’.
`The victim dynamics´ are listed in column O. All types of dynamics overlap!
The graphic is meant to illustrate the direction of the dynamics:
They come from the It-core of a person (or one of its parts) and go into the relative-area,
or outside (left arrow), in an efferent way.
This section is about dynamics that come from the absolute-sphere of the It, the core-It.
That is especially the case in the very beginning. In this case, P is identified with the core-It and acts in its order. Here, P acts as It because P also became It, and the It is personalized and individualized.
To be exact, P does not act as the It itself but as its functionary, participant and representative. As mentioned before, P is like subject² and object at the same time. Therefore P could be described as “sobject”. P in this role is first and foremost a perpetrator but always a victim of the dominant Its, too. Whenever P lives in the name of the It, then especially by the motto: all or nothing, black or white, top or bottom, win or loss, this or that, enemy or friend, hate or love and so on. People in this role are self-important – self-important like a god or self-important like a devil. Common mottos are: “Whoever is not with me is against me.” Instead of the connecting “and” dominates the “or”.
P is captured within the It and is only able to see the world from its specific point of view. We now live the life of the It: We only see what It sees. We act the way It wants us to. We only feel what It feels. We love and we hate what It loves and hates and so on. I² do what It tells me to do. I do what my inner “dictator” says. In the worst case, I sacrifice my life to It because the main goal of my life is the It, the parasite. It gives me what I believe is necessary for me. Only It lets me be I. Without It I do not exist. +It lets me be alive, ‒It kills me. Only +It gives me worth. I am abandoned from the It as soon as I stop bowing down to It. That can show in almost all dynamics (processes, behaviors etc.), even if they are contradictory. That is important for understanding behavioral disorders and paradoxical behaviors. That also means: P can primarily want something positive but does the opposite. Or P wants all but achieves nothing. As mentioned before, the It and therefore P too, also tries to expand to the outside. With that, P is also able to dominate other people through the It. Whatever It does to me, I do to others. I demand from other people to do what I think is right to do. People with other beliefs are being excluded or fought. P experiences doubt of his/her way of thinking or acting as questioning or attacking of the own person. Factual issues are taken personally. It has to be that way because P identified itself with the It and whenever the It is being attacked, it has to be experienced as an attack on the own person.
The Summary table shows in column `K´ across all aspects the character of P, if he has identified himself with It!
The illustration shows from which It-parts P acts when P has identified him-/herself with the It.
The inverse sides in gray font are latent but can be activated at any time.
Pro-sA / +
P² is identical to pro/+sA. I am +* (pro-sA and +sA are used synonymously).
All pro/+sA determined actions are more or less variations of: P loves (absolutizes) something, him/herself or other people too much and hates (‒absolutized) their opposites too much.
If the person loves or absolutizes mainly him-/herself, that equals selfish, narcissistic or when P is fully identified with pro/+sA he/she shows possibly manic behavior.
However, I dare not lose the It because that would also mean the loss of my identity, of my Self. So, I always have to feed It. In the background, the opposite, the contra-sA, is constantly waiting. I have to fight its realization to assure the +*. Due to the exertion of force that is needed permanently to keep up what we love, we also start to hate it. We have to hate it because we bleed dry because of the +sA. At the same time, we enjoy bleeding dry for it because the It became our Absolute that we believe to need.
P overstrains him/herself in this specific role. P does not see his/her limits because he/she is doped with inner endorphins. P is manipulable and vulnerable at this point.
A special role is being played by the behavior of P on the positive sides of the contra-sA or the 0. When keeping up the pro-sA became too expensive, the positive sides of the contra-sA become stronger. These contra sides cause P to show (often suddenly) antagonistic, hostile behavior towards the pro-sA or its representatives (e.g., towards other P). Therefore, in every absolutization an ambivalent behavior is possible.
P² is identified with contra / ‒sA. I am ‒*. (The terms contra-sA, ‒sA and ‒* are used synonymously).
The ‒sA are our false devils/ enemies/ evil with whom we have identified ourselves.
The behaviors of a P, determined by ‒sA, are variations of: P hates him/herself or others too much and loves their opposites too much – since they are both sides of the same coin, the It.
Self-( or other) punishment and -aggrandizement may stay balanced or alternate.
The behavior of P, whenever P is identified with 0, is comparable to the behavior of a nihilist or a person that suppresses the most important aspects of life. The main characteristics are: I ignore, liquidate, neglect, sacrifice something, somebody or even myself.
Example: “I am the spirit of perpetual negation.” (Mephistopheles).
There are often so-called displacement activities or similar behaviors. The behavior of this P is often the opposite of the behavior that is determined by the all – in sense of all-or-nothing behavior. See also `Negation (all or nothing)´.
“I loved my heroes like a fly the light; I looked for their dangerous proximity
and fled and looked for them again.” Hölderlin, Hyperion´.
P will act in an ambivalent, contradicting way if two opposite powers are of equal strength. So, if all and nothing, or pro-sA and contra-sA have the same power within P. Example: P loves and hates at the same time. The opposite powers are often balanced or take turns. P will paradoxically act if his/her +sA is connoted negatively or his/her ‒sA is connoted positively.
Equal and Opposite Behavior by pro-/contra-/0 sA
Persons who have the same sA can show the same but even contrary behavior.
Persons who are determined by an opposite sA, can show contrary but even the same behavior.
Example: One can have the obsessive thought of killing someone due to the enormous hate one has for that person. However, someone (like one of my patients) may have the same obsessive thought due to too much love. (The woman of my patient was his +Absolute, and he developed the obsession he may kill her for fear because he may lose her thereby – the meaning of his life).
Although maintaining these opposing positions requires much energy, P often benefits from living from both pro-sA and contra-sA positions. This allows P to maintain (an expensive) balance. P can compensate for the disadvantages of a sA with the opposite behavior. The person can use this “pendulum strategy” as a defense and thus become invulnerable.
Here only keywords because the role of P as a victim of Its, which I discuss later, is much more important in terms of the emergence of mental illness.
For more details, see Summary table in column P and Q.
P² with Misdimensioned Efferent Dynamics
a1: In this aspect, P mainly acts out of an absolutistic, or relativistic, or nihilistic position.
a2: P acts out of a hyper-identified or alienated position.
a3: P acts out of a hyper-realistic, or wrong, or hyper-realistic position.
Example for criticism on such a hyper-realism:
“The words of humans fill me with fear.
They name all the things with articulate sound:
[…] It’s the singing of things I’m longing to hear.
You touch them and stiff and silent they turn.
You’re killing the things for whose singing I yearn.“ Rainer Maria Rilke
Some P² in this position express everything in the indicative. They do not seem to know the subjunctive. Others however, do not seem to feel the desire to express themselves clearly.
a4: In this aspect, P acts out of a one-sided, monistic or dualistic position.
P isolates, merges, divides him/herself or something or other people.
a5: In this aspect, P mainly acts out of a deterministic and dogmatic or unreliable and libertinistic position. P makes him/herself, something or another person too insecure, wants to let go too much or on the other side, fixate too much, misprogram or determine.
a6: In this aspect, P acts out of a dictating, radical position.
P will equalize or radicalize; exaggerate or understate.
a7: In this aspect, P acts out of an automatic, autocratic, tyrannical or servile position.
P will (him/herself or else) subordinate, overadapt or become too independent.
P² Efferent Dynamics Concerning the IV Main Differentiations
With the identification of the specific It, P acts like a thing (or on the other side, like a ghost) because P is being materialized and depersonalized. |
With the identification of the specific It, P acts mainly as functionary, like a machine or a robot.
Or in the opposite: hyper-alive.
P acts out of a perfectionistic or negativistic or positivistic position.
The life, the actions of P become too negative, too imperfect or too positive or generally too faulty and disordered.
Connections (subject-, object-roles):
P acts out of a subjectivistic or objectivistic (functionalistic) or instrumentalistic position.
P mainly acts like an object (or an absolutistic subject).
Concerning connections: P creates connections where there are none or negates existing connections.
P-dynamics as a Strange Unit
P-dynamics as strange all-or-nothing:
P takes a totalitarian or negating position, depending on the It that identified him-/herself with. “All or nothing” says the It, and P acts by that principle. P totalizes or negates (or isolates). This all-or-nothing behavior can also be found in everyday life. Such as living the motto: “I either do the whole thing or nothing at all.”, or “If I cannot perfectly complete this, I will not do anything at all anymore.”, “You are either here for me completely, or you can leave.”
P as “God” or “devil”:
^P demonizes or idolizes or profanes him/herself or others out of this position.
P may act as his/her own God or his/her own devil.
P as “thing” or “hyper-person”:
Depending on the It, P may feel and act like a thing (depersonalized), or oppositely (like a hyper-person). Or P treats others that way.
P as “hyper-I” or another person:
P feels and acts like a person that is imprisoned within him/herself or only focused on him/herself in egocentricity (→ The Ego as a strange Absolute) – or acts and feels like another person (“heterocentricity”).
P-dynamics are too physical/ too spiritual/ too mental:
Depending on what part of P (body, soul, mind) is identified with an It, the affected person will feel a certain way. Here are also contrastive pairs. (Example: “Head” and “stomach”) Such as in the other aspects, nuances of behaviorism are missing. The behavior is too determined by body or soul.
Additional Differentiations (Examples)
I constrain here just on a few examples because the role of P as a victim of the Its in relation to the pathogenesis is more important. But as said: All types of dynamics overlap!
In keywords, I have listed all aspects of differentiation and their personal dynamics in the Summary table.
Aspect 8: Volition
We want whatever the It wants and not what we really want ourselves.
Aspect 11: Necessities
P is acting out of an It that represents absolutized necessities. P will start to believe that something, that is really not an absolute necessity, is definitely necessary and has to be made. Since P as It is mainly in the role of an offender, P will mainly demand other people to fulfill the requirements. They are usually dogmatic, bureaucratic or technocratic people on the one side, and on the opposite side, there are people that tend to anarchy. According to the contrast-pair-dynamics, there is often a change between the different positions..
Aspect 12: Morale
P acts out of an exaggerated conscience or out of lack of conscience.
In the first case, there is usually a scrupled personality.
If the conscience is the last instance and P acts out of it – and not towards it – the affected person will believe to know exactly what is morally and what is not. Being in this position, P is convinced to know exactly what one is doing right or wrong.
Aspect 13: The Distorted View
Just like looking through different glasses, the affected person has different views.
Left: = pro-view; Right:= contra-view; Middle:= ambivalent view.
Left: like magnification, rose-colored view with advantages². Right: dark prisms or no view.
Note: Looking through the different `glasses´ at the same time is also possible.
Considering mental disorders, this topic is more important than the described dynamics of P as It because here, the person has to make more sacrifices for It than before. P is like a prisoner of the It. Therefore P has to make appropriate sacrifices, to receive the positivity that seems absolutely necessary and to fend the negativity that appears dangerous and hostile. Put religiously: After eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of the good and the bad in paradise, we seem to be cursed to absolutely need to achieve the good and avoid the bad.
P is in a `psychical Bermuda Triangle´ (see graphic). P is trying to find an absolute +*, and sacrifices with that +¹ from him/herself (or other +) in the long run. P does not find peace in that triangle and jumps from one pole to another. P cannot be with, nor without the It. Whenever a +sA becomes my life, my drug, then the loss of it or the ‒sA is like dying or death. Therefore, I do everything to assure that +sA stays alive and to avoid ‒sA. With that, there is a constant necessity of exertion because the +sA needs to be fed, and the ‒sA needs to be fought at all times. The It lures with a +sA and threatens with a ‒sA.
The It can be everything for P: +It (object of addiction), ‒It (object of defense), or 0² (zero-object).
Fig. P in the `psychological Bermuda Triangle´.
The opposites are ever-present. At least potentially. After reaching the +sA, or the defense of ‒sA, the respective opposite becomes stronger because the price is becoming too high to keep the +sA alive and to avoid the ‒sA. The result is: I hate and love the It too much. From which I depend, I love and hate too much.102Every sin is like a two-edged sword. Sir 21.4 Also: The dependent person makes easily other people dependent.
P is looking for a +It/sA that gives absolute positivity (+*).
P feels great, awesome, high, when receiving +*. 103I write often for the sake of simplicity instead of P² only P.
Addiction to what?
The addiction is directed towards something absolutized positive. Usually, that is a +sA. But it may also be the positive side of ‒sA or of 0, that we are addicted to. That is the case if +sA became too expensive, and if there is no other +sA as an object of addiction.
More important than addicting substances (alcohol, drugs) are `behavioral addictions´ (= non-substantial addictions).
Addiction to +sA
In the beginning, the It mainly offers its positive side, the +sA. It always promises more than it can give. Compared to the first-rate positive, the It often has the advantage of faster satisfaction, even if that is usually connected with higher costs for P.
All aspects may function as +sA.
• Success (aspect 15)
P always and consistently has to pump successes into the It-center to feel good because the +sA that causes well-being has only short-term effects and becomes soon weak. We have to feed our Egos. Therefore we are doomed to success.
• Safety (aspect a5)
Safety is often conveyed by accurate rules which must be obeyed, like in an army. With an absolutization, the actual danger is often pushed in the background. (A very grotesque example was the instruction for the terrorists of September 11th, to make sure that their clothes are clean to get to paradise.) It is also a common behavior for people with compulsive illnesses, that feel secure by following certain rituals. Those compulsions have a high cost for the affected person.
• Health (aspect 5)
The specific +sA, or its representatives, the health fanatics or people that use health for business, the believers that view God1 only as a God of health – all of them tempt others people with the message of health being able to be achieved completely if certain requirements are met by P. (Ideology of `healthism´)..
• Satisfaction (Aspect 7)
Currently, drugs, internet addiction, soccer (and similar) play a big part in this aspect.
The more we are seeking satisfaction with those kinds of Absolutes, the more we will receive compensatory-satisfaction (or compensatory-fortune). And as soon as the compensatory-satisfaction becomes too expensive or does not fulfill us anymore, we will try to find another +*object. We may also let a part of an unachievable object fulfill our needs temporarily: at least catch a glimpse of the loved one, a piece, an idol´s autograph etc.
The terms of psychoanalysis describe similar aspects: compensatory-satisfaction, compensatory-objects, compensatory-actions. C.G. Jung denotes neurosis as compensatory-affliction. (It should be added: neurosis as compensatory-luck, too).
Briefly, the theory of S. Freud: Since the original object of love (mother) is forbidden, the child tries to find a compensatory-object. The consequence of the suppressed original wish may be a symptom. With that, the original wish would be partly satisfied because of the associative connection between the wish and the symptom, so that with the symptom, the wish is fulfilled symbolically.
Freud says, that a compensatory-satisfaction takes place, whenever a wish or a drive/ instinct cannot be fulfilled due to inner or outer prohibitions and other actions fulfill (partly) those needs.
I differentiate: first-rate (heavenly) happiness, that is free of costs, and second-rate “happiness”, that has to be paid for (compensatory-happiness).
For a general description of the term addiction to life see the section `Life and death as sA‘.
Addiction to +Side of ‒sA
• Choice/search of a negative identity (Erikson).
• Seeking for sorrow, e.g., “It is easier for me to feel sorrow than to constantly be happy.”
Or: “My sorrow is the strongest weapon against the fake optimism of my parents.”
• “Addiction to illness” see: “morbid gain”
Also: Depression is the strongest (second-rate) remedy against the danger of becoming manic. The same applies to mania, which is the strongest (second-rate) remedy against becoming depressed.
Addiction, drive or pulse to the +side of a ‒ part of an It is also a defense of the ‒ sides of a +sA.
Addiction to +Side of 0
Examples: Longing for nirvana or every-day reaction: If I cannot get everything, then I do not want anything at all. Because: The nothingness seems more bearable than the loss of +everything.
Overview and Definition
Talking about defense or Defense-mechanisms (DM), I am referring to second-rate, usually unconscious reactions of the affected person towards absolutely negative perceived experiences (‒*), which actual are only relatively negative.104See also Summary table columns O and P.
Negative* sides of the different It/sA (or ‒A) are being fended. Whatever is perceived as absolutely negative, the affected person will view it as an attack on the Self. Therefore the person will not react relaxed or with relative methods. On the other side, the defense-reactions are inadequate, exaggerated and expensive, compared to first-rate solutions.
Synonyms or similar terms for defense-mechanisms: anticathexis, counter-reaction, second-rate protection/defense.
Anticathexis I view here as the defense of a part by an opposite. (More see below).
(I will equal treat anticathexis and reaction formation here for the sake of simplicity.)
The “defense” of negatively perceived consequences of +A is referred to as resistance.
I view solutions or (primary) protection as first-rate reactions of the affected person towards the ‒*and other negative.
Coping and Defense
In short, “coping” is generally understood as stress management. There are fluent lines between coping and defense. The more it leans towards defense, the higher are the costs. I mean, defense and coping have only secondary value because they depend at last on the strength of humans and a human has only limited strength. In contrast, first-rate solutions are mainly based on the Self, require less effort and are less costly and more effective in the long run. I.e., absolutely negative experiences cannot be managed by the I alone because the I only has relative force/strength. Concepts of therapy and defense that are more focused on the I than on the Self are in my opinion secondary. Typically, the Self did not play a big part in S. Freud´s theories. The Ego and rationality were Absolutes for him. (Freud: “Where Id was, there Ego shall be”, “My God Logos” and so on.)
However, a defense system that focuses on both of it (Ego and Logos) in the center, seems to be too weak to compensate deep disorders. I think that is also the reason why Freud only saw a few starting points in psychotherapy of psychoses. The strong and integrative powers of an actual Self remained unconsidered by him. Even the self-psychology only tries to extend old psychoanalytic models because it defines the Self only as a Relative.
(Further, see in Self-strength and Ego-strength or in the unabridged German version).
What is Being Fended? (Targets of Defense)
As mentioned before, everything that is experienced as absolutely negative is a target of defense. This is:
1) ‒sA and the consequences
2) ‒ of +sA (e.g., too costly harmony, esp. the loss of a +sA).
3) ‒ of 0.
About 1) Mostly fear, sadness, pain, guilt, anger, conflicts, bad experiences and burdens are defended. Especially what was experienced as absolutely negative has to be defended. At these parts that P identified him-/herself with, P is mostly endangered if they are being attacked. I² am the It. If you attack something* of me, you are attacking my Self. I call that the open black (or in case of +sA: white) gates within the defense-system of a person. Then P cannot differentiate between objective issues and personal issues.
(Also see: Vulnerability-stress-theory).
About 2) If somebody/something threatens my +sA, and I have to fear the loss of it, than somebody/ something becomes my enemy because it threatens the center of my existence. “All my life I have been haunted by the obsession that to desire a thing or to love a thing intensely is to place yourself in a vulnerable position, to be a possible if not a probable, loser of what you most want.”105(Tennessee Williams, “The Theatre of Tennessee Williams”, p.4, New Directions Publishing )
That means that also the positive can be fended or feared if its negative side becomes too visible.
About 3) ‘Horror vacui’ spreads fear and terror. P has to fill ‒0 with something. P has to pay a price. A constant escape from an unbearable emptiness. How many people cannot be without constant input.
Thus, P² often fears the loss of +sA, the coming of ‒sA or total emptiness more than its own death.
2. The main second-rate remedies of defense are:
which is more conscious, need Ego- strength and unnecessarily high expenditure of energy since the Ego does not act out of the actual Self (resp. + A).
• “Defense by Sacrifice“. They are described later in ‘Sacrificial-dynamics‘ and `Emergency solution by disease´ which play a special role in the pathogenesis and other Symptomatic Therapies and Emergency Solutions.
• Defense by “Anticathexis” = defense by respective opposites (Inclusive reaction formation):
The term `anticathexis´ is defined differently in the literature. I use it here to defend a part by its opposite, similar to the so-called reaction formation.
I would therefore speak of ‘defense by opposites’. See also section: `It-parts as Opposites…´, where we found how inversions in the second-rate realities create opposites that can strengthen, fight or neutralize. Here is about the latter two functions.
One can differentiate:
a) Anticathexis by the contrary opposite (example: +sA against ‒sA)
b) Anticathexis by the contradictory opposite (0)
The opposite It/sA of the same aspects are to be mentioned first, ultimately all the other aspects are to be mentioned too.
Example: Defense against the disadvantages of wealth* with modesty* (same aspect) or with self-punishment or illness (different aspect).
c) Anticathexis by a similar part (This could also be called “defense by Co-cathexis”).
P puts +* against ‒*, resp. `false Gods against devils´.
Examples: Work against boredom, hyper-control against chaos or sex against mortal fear. (Similar to S. Freud’s anticathexis ‘Libido against Destrudo’.)
A common saying is “To replace devil with Beelzebub)”, which describes the process of replacing a negative aspect with another negative aspect that might be even stronger. Illness as defense plays a big role in this aspect.
Example: Woman with cancer: “I hate everything to prevent myself from dying of fear.”
S. Kierkegaard: “Since my earliest childhood a barb of sorrow has lodged in my heart. As long as it stays I am ironic if it is pulled out I shall die.”106 https://jebralston.com/tag/longing-2/
Additional example: If parents keep correcting their child over and over again, expecting it to speak properly, the likelihood is high that the child starts to stutter or stops speaking. Stutter can also be viewed as a counter reaction of the child. In those families, functionality and speaking are absolutized. To go against the pressure of expectations of those families, a counter position can be the strongest weapon:107As written: the contra-sA is the biggest enemy of pro-sA . A distinct dysfunction (stutter) will be used against the sA (functionality). Usually, there will be some kind of (unconscious) power struggle about the existence of the old sA (functionality), which stabilizes the family on the one hand but mainly overstrains the index-patient. As a rule, the affected person has no precise position but switches between pro- and contra-sA. The person sits between the chairs. Sometimes, he/she still finds hold in the old sA, although it is also overstraining for him/her.
This situation applies to many psychical ill people. Depending on the case, illness as a defense may be more or less an anticathexis by ‒ or by 0.
Anticathexis by 0 (Repression)
Here, it is about the mechanisms, where ‒* is defended by a 0 (Nothing).
Psychoanalysis mainly describes those mechanisms by using the term “repression”.
I will present two examples out of the publication of I.D. Yalom ‘The Schopenhauer cure’ 108I.D. Yalom „Die Schopenhauer-Kur“ btb-Verlag München. 2006. (Translated by me).
“Schopenhauer made me aware that we are doomed to turn endlessly on the wheel of willing: we want something, we get it, we enjoy a brief moment of gratification, which quickly sinks to boredom, then inevitably the next ‘I want’ follows. To breastfeed the desire is not a way out – you have to jump completely off the cycle … In fact, these ideas are also at the center of the Buddhist doctrine.” (p. 360, 338).
Additional keywords about that topic: Stoicism and similar escapism-ideologies; Buddhism: “Nirvana”, “Victory of renunciation”. Hermann Hesse: “Courage, my heart, take leave and fare thee well!”; Goethe: “This, die and become”, and many more. Also: Fending off the negative sites of the all by the nothingness.
S. Freud´s Anticathexis in Comparison with Pro-Contra-sA-Dynamics
S. Freud: Anticathexis “a psychical process that supports the psychical defense. Its main use is to prevent desires of a drive of the It to become real. Destrudo helps to neutralize libidinous desires – or vice versa.”109Cit. by UH Peters, see Bibliography.
In my opinion, it is an expensive emergency solution in the second-rate realities.
(Note: Freud only describes dynamics of second-rate realities.)
Anticathexis is about the dynamics between the named It-parts (pro/contra sA) which stand in opposition. E.g., if a part* (sA) is experienced too negative, its effect can be neutralized by its opposite (Contra-sA).
This anticathexis requires a constant supply of energy.
Even according to S. Freud, this energy is as great as the energy that the repressed part* has.
Internal and external Defense Mechanisms
The defense mechanisms can be internal or external. Internal defense mechanisms take place in the person himself. In the case of “external defense mechanisms,” the individual blames others for his or her protection. For example, the one-sidedness of an exaggerated pacifism may be compensated for internally by corresponding aggressive fantasies or externally by an aggressive partner. Likewise, the individual may have been held responsible for the defensive functions of his partner or other people in reverse. Such constellations are typical for Collusions.
The Double Character of Defense-Mechanisms (DM)
Due to the fact that the sA/It and their consequences are ambivalent, one sA may strengthen and/or weaken the defense-system. This mechanism can be compared to a tank that weakens the defense because it is very immobile but it also makes them less likely to be attacked. Another example are debts, that help at first but become very burdensome in the long run. Depending on the situation or the time frame, there are either positive or negative consequences in the foreground. Therefore, the sA/It resp. the strange-Selves may be the second-best friends (following the Self), or the second-worst enemies (following the actual negative Absolute). However, the defense is always more costly than a first-rate solution.
Overview of possible defense mechanisms from one’s own point of view see the Summary table columns O and P.
Summary of Defense-Mechanisms
Answers to some W-questions: Who? Why? What? With what? When? Where? Whom? (How?, How long?)
• Who defends? P².
• What is being fended? Everything that is experienced as absolutized negative.
• Why? To defeat the negative and keep the positive.
• With what? Everything that is experienced as negative can be fended by all psychical relevant aspects.
• How? Especially by anticathexis or sacrifice.
• Where? Mainly in the unconscious of P².
• How long? Until one +sA predominates or until an actual solution was found.
• What is the price? P² mostly pays with parts of the Self, otherwise everything that is of psychical relevance can be used to pay.
• Who pays the price? If it is a sacrifice, P² mainly pays the price him/herself, otherwise, it will be paid by other people or other realities.
• How expensive is the price? The DM is the more expensive, the more has to be sacrificed of +A or the Self.
• What is being defended? The It and its system resp. the Ego.
• Active or passive? Conscious or unconscious? Actively and consciously as action or reaction especially in form of coping; passively and unconsciously in form of processes and functions especially in form of defense-mechanisms.
It depends on the side of the nothing*:
1. Towards the main side of nothing (0 of 0: strange emptiness, nothing) → must be filled.
2. Towards the positive side of nothing (+ of 0: Examples: Nirvana, belle indifference) → ‘Search’ or addiction.
3. Towards the negative side of nothing ( – from 0. Examples: Horror vacui; Hell as nothing?) → Defense.
If we consider the behavior of P² in relation to the all-or-nothing alternative, then P² wants primarily everything +, nothing else. If P cannot have everything, she prefers nothing, rather than a Relative one.
“There are two main misfortunes that I fear:
First, if that what I fear the most becomes real
and second, if that what I desire the most becomes real.” Patient L.
To be exact, every reaction of P² is ambivalent because the It of them is ambivalent as well. The strongest ambivalence exists if a +sA-part and a ‒sA-part of one It are of equal strength, or if there are two contradicting Its facing each other. P² is caught within the It. So, P² is facing contradictions and paradoxes, that seem intractable for P² and that are the basis of many mental disorders.
P² constantly finds himself in all-or-nothing situations. P² can be torn between the plus-parts and the minus-parts of It ( sA or ‒sA), or he falls into the nothingness.110„Psychical Bermuda Triangle“ The affected person will have an excessive love-, hate-, or indifference relationship with other people. | Because the sA are experienced very differently by the person, there can be some crazinesses, that cannot be explained or understood with common sense. E.g., whatever was fended first because it had a ‒* connotation may become +* and vice versa. However, that crazinesses may have important functions in the second-rate dynamics. There are often multiple functions at the same time: Addiction and defense at the same time (s. Freud´s `mixture of drives´) or alternating. Addiction, defense and sacrifice as functions of the opposites ( sA, ‒sA, 0) are parts of the totalitarian unit ‘It’.
Keywords: If the enemy dies, the false friend will die as well, resp. if the “devil” dies, then the false God will die, too.
But also vice versa: If the devil dies, the false God can have a short high. The false God needs the devil in order to be itself and vice versa. My “God” is also my “devil” (or nothing). Whatever I love excessively, can also be hated excessively. In relationships, those people tend to love too much (→ pact, symbiosis) or to hate too much (→ enmity) or living both sides (love-hate) or to lose themselves in emptiness (0).
I repeat: those opposites are just two sides of the same coin, the It (resp. the strange Self). Although they are opponents, they are friends when it comes to the opposition towards the first-rate Self. The opposites can be active at the same time or appear in phases one after another. E.g., hyper-position and hypo-position can be taken simultaneously or successively. “Because I am so submissive, I am the greatest and better than the others.” Or the succession of two contradicting desires: “I desire your love but because I experienced love as exploitative in my past, I am also afraid that you love me.”
Likewise, I can now love something that I hated because it frees me from the flip side of a + *. For example. “I hated the exhausting diets (during anorexia), now I’m (unconsciously) free of it and eat me full (bulimia).”
Such contradictions and paradoxes are created by `Inversions´, such as described at the beginning of the chapter ‘Metapsychiatry’. |
Example of a Patient
Patient W. had problems with women: He viewed women either as saints or as whores. He desired but he also feared to fall in love. He was longing for intimacy and affection but was afraid to become dependent on a woman. Typically, he fell in love with a prostitute because she was also depending on him. That way he was able to direct the relationship. However, the more he fell in love with her, the more he was afraid to lose her or to lose himself. He could not be without her anymore but at the same time he could not “really be with her”. “I loved her and I hated her.”
As a result, he developed fantasies of murdering to her to end the dependency and because he did not endure imagining how she slept with other men. But it was paradoxically also been right to him that she had sex with other men because that way he did not experience his dependency as that strong.|
Other Examples for “Love-Hate”
• In sadomasochistic relationships.
• In Borderline-disorders.
• Tolstoy and his wife.
• Pablo Picasso and the women.
• All people that sacrifice too much for others. For example Idealists for a certain idea, mothers that sacrifice too much for their kids, men that sacrifice too much for their job, a partner for the other partner, etc.
“If you begin by sacrificing yourself to those you love, you will end by hating those to whom you have sacrificed yourself.” (George Bernard Shaw).
A development worker: “Most people that I know went to the developing countries as idealists and came back as racists.” See also: `Possibilities of interactions´)
Fascination of the Negative and the Evil
Can’t everything fascinate people? Can’t everything have advantages, at least temporarily, and we fall for it / choose it, even if the price is too high?
Since every Relative has two sides, the inherently negative Relative also has a positive side, which can be fascinating when it dominates. (→ Examples of the Genesis of the three It-parts).
There are many different fascinations of the negative:
• There is a fascination of the evil.
From a religious point of view, the fascination of sin is similar: after we have eaten the apple of the knowledge of good and evil, we are condemned to do good and leave evil, and it is fascinating to lift this curse by doing evil . Similar to Paul: “… the good that I want, I do not; but the evil … ”- that is,“ that force that wants good but creates evil.”(Based on Goethe).
• There is a fascination to be just a thing / object or a machine instead of a person.
Example: “There was a grandiose emptiness and self-abandonment on the faces of these men, which has probably never existed in the course of history … They lived so cleanly, so precisely, so without thoughts, as without conscience as living engines. They were just waiting to be started or turned off … engine people.”111[Franz Werfel cit. In P.S. Jungk: „Franz Werfel: Eine Lebensgeschichte“. S. 257]
• There is the fascination of giving up oneself, the fascination of wanting to lose one’s own individuality and merge into a crowd.
• There is a fascination to be sick rather than healthy.
• There is the fascination of death and the nothing.
(Keywords: death instinct, longing for death, suicide.
→ S. Freud `Thanatos and → Inverted, Paradoxical World.)
The causes of these fascinations vary from person to person.
They essentially correspond to what I have listed in the section on Morbid Gain under `Morbid gain in detail’.
These processes play an important role in mental illness. They are often an expression of emergency or replacement solutions.
In relation to the fascination of evil, taboos probably play a special role.
[The fascination of evil can theoretically also come primarily from a ‒A (as primary sadism, primary destructionism]
Some people only want the positive and suppress the negative. But then the person concerned lives contrary to his nature and pays a price: He lives only half and unfree. The complement, the counterpart – the negative side (evil, aggressive, immoral, etc.) is missing in his life. This applies above all to humanists, pacifists, idealists, altruists, perfectionists and moralists. Karen Horney called her “press angel”.
An insoluble conflict arises: On the one hand, the person concerned wants to live without negative sides, but on the other hand, he wants to be free and whole. Therefore, the negative sides are taboo and fascinating at the same time. There are many examples in life and in fairy tales of how taboos are irresistible. This also includes the fascination that dictators, murderers, criminals, vices, etc. have on corresponding counter-types.
Not only “revolutions devour their children” (Pierre Vergniaud) but all Its.
“There is no strong desire that you do not have to pay for.” (Elias Canetti)
The Its make all or nothing. Especially nothing. That is discussed here.
Sacrifice is a part of every second-rate dynamic and ideology.
The Its need sacrifices. They favor the Self, personal and lively subjects as sacrifices.
Its need either a) of its own P or b) others as a sacrifice.
Usually, it is connected with each other.
Everything personal can be sacrificed. Very important for our topic: the sacrifice of health.
How are the Sacrificial-Dynamics?
The second-rate personal dynamics (D²) are determined by the Its. Their priority is the maintenance of the Its (resp. the strange Selves). The person can sacrifice itself or others for that or the person is sacrificed itself. If P sacrifices too much of him-/herself, P acts in a self-damaging and sickening way. If a person sacrifices others (other people, other objects) he/she will cause others to become ill. This often goes together.
For example: One-sided love for one’s neighbor (altruism) has above all the consequence of loss of self-love (and also the loss of a true love for one’s neighbor), as well as a one-sided self-love (egoism) has above all the consequence of loss of love for one’s neighbor (but ultimately the egoist comes off badly, too.)
General: A second-rate Absolute (sA) has above all the consequence of the loss of the same first-rate Absolute (but also the loss of the opposite).
To self-sacrifice: As mentioned before, P longs for an absolute positive. P is convinced that the It is something good (the best) although it is not and views something absolutely negative although it is not so negative. To achieve the +* and fend off the ‒*, P lives of its own costs, of its own substance. P is a double loser! P loses the play and itself.
P may also use the advantages of inversion and lets other people pay the price for it. The consequences of the inversion can be transmitted within WPI! It can be transmitted between W and P and I or within W, P or I.
Concerning mental disorders, we are going to focus on the dynamics of self-sacrifice:
Here, it is mainly about unconscious dynamics, about processes, functions and unconscious structures of behavior. Above all first-rate but also second-rate things are lost. Since the first are more serious, this loss is at the forefront.
(For all aspects, see also Summary table columns o and P).
Especially the following first-rate dimensions are being lost:
a1 Sense, transcendence, faith and love
a2 Identity, the Self
a3 Truth, reality and opportunities
a4 Unity and variety
a5 Safety and freedom
a6 Basis, center and superstructure
a7 Autonomy and refuge.
Loss of first-rate personal being, life, qualities and connections and the subject-role of P.
1. Sacrifice of the personal wholeness.
2. Sacrifice of the personal relationship to God, which may also lead to senselessness.
3. Sacrifice of the first-rate personality, which may lead to apersonalism.
4. Sacrifice of individuality, which may lead to the loss of I to Non-I.
5. Sacrifice of first-rate parts of spirit, soul and body, which may lead to mindlessness, soullessness and loss of health.
6. Sacrifice of first-rate love, sexuality, gender-role, which may cause their loss.
7. Sacrifice of first-rate, actual emotions, which may cause apathy and deadness.
8. Sacrifice of the own will and voluntariness, which may lead to abulia and a lack of voluntariness.
9. Sacrifice of actual personal belongings, which may cause personal poverty.
10. Sacrifice of possibilities and skills, which may cause powerlessness and weakness.
11. Sacrifice of personal order with the consequence of personal chaos.
12. Sacrifice of orientation, which leads to a lack of orientation.
13. Sacrifice of personal rights and opportunities of control, which leads to rightlessness and intemperance.
14. Sacrifice of creativity, which causes a lack of creativity.
15. Sacrifice of own activities with the consequence of inactivity.
16. Sacrifice of first-rate information and knowledge, which may cause a lack of knowledge and blindness.
17. Sacrifice of opportunities of expression and candor, which causes mutism and a lack of candor.
18. Sacrifice of own valuesand meanings, which may cause a loss of valuesand meaninglessness.
19. Sacrifice of the own past, which may lead to a loss of experience.
20. Sacrifice of the own time and presence, which may cause restlessness.
21. Sacrifice of the own future, which may lead to a loss of perspective.
22. Sacrifice of the own opportunities of corrections and compensation, which leads to faults and a lack of correction.
23. Sacrifice of the own protection, which causes vulnerability and defenselessness.
In the Summary table I have listed these “sacrifices” in column N with ↓.
More to Aspect 23: Loss of protection. (“The open gates of defense”)
The sacrifice of the own protection and security leads to something that I will call ‘the open gates of the defense of the Self’. P is in those areas especially vulnerable and also manipulable. Therefore, a person can be hurt by taking away the +sS or by threatening with a ‒sS. The open gates (or sore points) of the psyche can also be recognized by the fact that P will take something personal because P identifies him-/herself with it.
It seems important to me that despite all the P²-dynamics there is always a rest of first-rate personality left. That is mostly the personal part, that still allows P to make free decisions. That fact is important for therapy purposes and will be discussed more detailed in a later chapter.
This publication is mainly about self-sacrifice and a lack of self-protection of P because that represents an important cause of the emergence of mental disorders. Therefore, I will discuss the sacrifice of other people only briefly. However, the mechanisms, as described above, are the same. They are then focused on other people or the environment so that those are more endangered to become ill than the person that is causing the actions.
Equally important is that the health of a person is often sacrificed by others, esp. if the affected P has little self-protection.
[In total It-results and P²-reactions summarized – see Summary table columns L to V.]
(This chapter is shortened to a great degree. To read more, view unabridged version or chapter ‘Relationship-disorders‘).
1st Phase: Expansion and inflation with participation of P (of society), monopolization, boom.
2nd Phase: Stagnation, crisis, tip over.
3rd Phase: collapse, finale.
1st phase: Expansion
P is still over-identified with +It. P has not yet experienced a reversed side of the It.
P tries to expand in the sense of the It.
Interphase: Increasing concentration on the needs of the It; Exclusion of the enemies; Black-white-scheme.
2nd phase: Crisis
P only stays stable as long as he/she has enough energy to follow +*, fight against ‒* and to fill 0*. The exertion of force that is used by P, to stabilize the psychical balance/ the center, is becoming bigger and bigger. This force will be missing in general life.
In this phase, the It will be experienced as more ambivalent and negative.
P becomes increasingly a victim of It.
Typical features of this phase:
Ambivalent situations and dilemmas:
There are opposite phenomena that co-exist and keep a stiff balance.
There is always the danger of tip over, the loss of balance, or the risk of being torn.
The smaller the basis for the equilibria (left and right picture), the more unstable and complex they are. There is no broad base as in W¹, but often only one point (= sA) on which the respective system depends. Here, there is a risk of loss of equilibrium, disruption and ambivalent or dilemma situations.
Examples: see unabridged German version. Symbol also Yin-Yang ☯, see below.
There is chaos at zero point. The affected person is ‘dangling in the air’. Usually, P has distinct symptoms, is vulnerable – and constantly endangered to fall back into old patterns.
The advantages and disadvantages of the Its are equal. This is also a point where P has to make decisions.
The zero point is danger and chance at the same time.
In this highly labile state, just before a turnover of the system, the Its are very aggressive and cause P to be very agitated (example: Panic-attacks or florid psychoses).
This graphic illustrates the tip over into the opposite (psychical tilting mechanism) by using the Yin-Yang symbol or into disintegration. P can tip over into the opposite or emptiness and breaks. Wherever previously advantages were, are now more and more disadvantages being created, until the It (or the system) turns completely into the opposite or disintegrates. The illustration should also show how the pros and cons of the It increase exponentially before the system tipping over. The system puffs up and collapses → 0 or tilts into the opposite.
• Toward → 0, e.g., Friedrich Nietzsche: “… the man seems to have fallen on to a steep plane – he rolls faster and faster away from the center – whither? into nothingness?”112In: The Genealogy of Morals/Third Essay.
• Toward → 0pposite: In general: exaggerations, extremes, strange absolutes and the like. E.g., Robert Musil: “Ideals have curious properties, and one of them is that they turn into their opposites if one exactly wants to obey them.“113In: The Man Without Qualities´
Or P. Watzlawick, who pointed out that an excess of good always turns into evil. Or: Too much of a good turns into negative.
You can find in all aspects of WPI this tipping over into the opposite according to this basic pattern that can be caused by all possible Its!
In practice, it is mostly that the person (s) must sacrifice themselves or others more and more in order to compensate for the ever-increasing disadvantages in the system and thus to prevent the downfall of what is their Absolute, their “Self”, even that what they themselves have become. It is the dynamics of whole societies, of whole cultures but also of individuals who were destroyed like this.
For me, Friedrich Nietzsche is a typical example of how in the course of his life an ever more dangerous, ever-increasing struggle for his ideals and against his anti-ideals led to his psychosis. (Also see: Crisis and falling ill and ‘About the emergence of paradoxes’.)
3rd phase: Collapse
P is now the final victim/ sacrifice of the It.
Also see: Sacrificial-dynamics, Crisis and falling ill.
P is now the final victim/ sacrifice of the It. First P is going down, then his Its.
In this phase, it is typical for the person to fall ill because they can no longer pay the price for maintaining +sA and the defense against ‒sA and s0.
It is the dynamics of individuals, but also of entire societies and entire cultures that were broken in this way.
In this phase the mercilessness of the ruling It towards P shows itself quite unvarnished. While it seemed the It has given P absolute importance at the beginning of their interaction, P is now more and more brutally suppressed and sucked out. P has to sacrifice himself for his It – or, from P’s point of view, P prefers to die himself before he sacrifices his strange Absolutes.
For me, Friedrich Nietzsche is a typical example of how in the course of his life an increasingly dangerous, ever increasing struggle for his ideals and against his anti-ideals led to psychosis.
Every P² can create a pact with another P², fight, or neutralize him/her.
(Symbols: OO = Pact, # = Opposites, 0 = annulment ).
That means, they create pacts, opposites or neutralize each other because each of their It/sA -centers has three main options of reaction: too pro(+), too contra(‒) or too 0.
Each P² is therefore very fast friend or enemy or indifferent to other P².
Put in other words: P² tend to love or to hate others too much, or to ignore them.
The graphic illustrates two P² with all their It/sA-interaction-possibilities.
Example: If the first P² absolutized ‘wealth’, the triangle with the solid line would represent the pro-area (wealth) with its three sides/corners (+/‒/0) = advantage, disadvantage and indifference of wealth.
The gray triangle represents the opposite of wealth – poverty – and its three sides/corners. The triangle with the dashed line represents neither wealth nor poverty (0). All three triangles (parts of 1. P²) are connected to each other and dependent on each other. (→ `It as nine-sided triad´).
Depending on what side of the It/sA is activated, this will merge or combat or erase a second person’s It/sA (or Co-It/sA). Suggesting that the second person is dominated by ‘power’, the advantages of wealth of the first person would create a pact with the advantages of power and collide with the disadvantages of power etc.
List of all interactions in second-rate personal systems, “games” of P², and details on pacts, antagonism and annulment, see unabridged German version.
Opposite It/sA fight or support or neutralize each other.
• Opposite It/sA fight each other if they are both connoted equally. (Example: Wealth is +*, asceticism is +*).
• Opposite It/sA support each other and make a pact if they are connoted opposite.
(Example: wealth is ‒* and asceticism is +*)
• Opposite It/sA neutralize each other if they suppress each other´s advantages and disadvantages.
(Example: wealth does not matter, asceticism does not matter).
• Overly equal P²s make a pact if they are connoted the same.
• Overly equal P²s fight each other if they have opposite connotations.
• Overly equal P²s neutralize each other if they suppress each other´s advantages and disadvantages.
When trying to find a certain cause for a certain result (e.g., certain actions/ reactions/ symptoms /behavior), one should not only think about the main cause but also about the opposite as cause.
A common example is the combination of morality and immorality. Usually, morals would oppress immorality. However, the opposite may occur as well if excessive morality causes immorality. In a relationship, that could cause a hyper-moral person to cause amoral behavior of others. Or: Excessive fidelity causes betrayal, fixated love causes hate and so on.
In principle love* views hate* as its enemy. Love* then, is the strongest remedy² against hate*.
However, excessive love* will promote hate* if love* became too negatively (too exhausting). Then, love* and hate* create a pact with each other. Also the other way around if hate* appears as too negatively, the excessive love* seems to be a savior.
– Masculinism (Machismo) fights feminism and vice versa – but at a certain point, both create what they fought before.
– Masculinism suppresses women and brings surrogate potency to the man but in the long run impotence. Impotent men need masculinism (and pornography) to stay potent, even though they tend to remain impotent in the long run. Then they have to take sexual enhancers, which in turn benefits the pharmaceutical industry, which is making then a pact with the porn industry.
– Exaggerated feminism suppresses men and gives women short surrogate satisfaction but long-term frigidity. Frigid women need feminism for surrogate satisfaction, although in a long way they tend to remain frigid.
– Both masculinism and exaggerated feminism promote homosexual tendencies.
(→ Aspect 6: Gender, Love, Sex and The Opposites and their Dynamics).
Inversed topics always have two opposite meanings. 114Therefore, all parties involved are more or less right in conflict of interests.
Because my father drinks too much alcohol, I drink too much as well. / Because my father drinks too much alcohol, I am not drinking.
“You are doing fine because you do not have much to do.” / “I am feeling bad because I have nothing to do.”
“We are so much in debt already, it does not matter if we spend a few more dollars.” / “We are so much in debt already, we have to save every penny.”
Her: “I am already ill, I cannot deal with your illness as well.” / Him: “I thought you would be able to understand my illness and my situation because you are ill yourself.” Etc.
There can be a special situation if the advantages and disadvantages (pro and contra) have the same strength. That may also be the reason, why one person is being desired and feared at the same time. I may fear or desire the opposite at the same time. In that case I dear and desire one thing and its opposite simultaneously. (See also `Ambivalent and paradoxical reactions´ ).
Origin of a disorder of a system or relationship is usually a mental overload.The affected people react to this overload by using compromises or emergency solutions. In the emergency they try to find support and relief in the Relative. Since their previous Absolute has abandoned them, they establish new bases, new centers, new strange Selves, compensatory-Absolutes, or the reactivate old ones.115In the following, I usually speak of the strange Self (sS) or the strange Pseudo-Absolute (sA).
One could also speak of the ‘It’ because of the cooperation of several sA.
Often the new center is established within a group/system. That way, fixed balances are created (usually unknowingly) that save the system from the feared collapse but with high costs.
The system, as well as the individual, is stuck in a constant dilemma: On one hand, there is a desire of changing the emergency-balance and to end the costs and on the other hand there are strong tendencies of remaining the homeostasis to avoid the feared collapse.
The basic patterns of those disorders are equal to the strange Self disorders and will be found more detailed in that chapter. In the following section I want to point out the most important aspects of relationship-disorders.
Such as the psychical disorders in general, the story of relationship-disorders is about dependence or lack of relationships. Dependence is mainly caused by false love and hate. They cannot be held apart because false love also contains parts of hate and lack of relationship, such as a person that hates another person, cannot be apart from that person, and cannot build a real relationship. Dependence means dependent on sA. sA may be a person, or something that was absolutized by P.
A person `A´ may be dependent on two strange-Selves (sS) that may be achievement* and intellect*.
This person `A´ is dependent on those two factors. They are important for him-/herself, `A´ is fixated on them. They have characteristics of an Absolute. `A´ gives them a greater importance then him-/herself. Whatever we have already discussed when talking about the strange Self, applies here. The person `A´ is determined by three main factors: By the actual Self and two strange-Selves.
Whenever other people create a relationship with person `A´, where they cooperate with `A’s dependence, a collusion arises. 116Synonyms: pact, wrong friendship, symbiosis.
The direct dependences/ fixations of person `A´ will also become a dependences/ fixations of other persons/ people. More precisely: Person `B´ cooperates with the fact that the strange-Selves of `A´ (achievement* and intellect*) determine the relationship. Person `B´ is caught in a co-dependence.
These dependencies can only come from one person – but usually two or more people are involved. In our example, there will be an additional sS (absolute fidelity towards the partner) of person `B´ that also is part of the relationship. Person `A´ will also be dominated by that sS. With that, the interdependence becomes even stronger. The misabsolutizations are transmitted and determine both of them (or the whole system). All the affected people then become dependent. On one side, the sS/sA cause the affected people to stick together, on the other side they appear as topics, that cause arguments and disagreements later on.
If we think of multiple people, such as a family (parents, two kids) that adapted the mentioned absolutizations, which we will mark as 1*, 2* and 3*, the situation will be as listed below:
Illustration: Four people have the same absolutizations (1*, 2*, 3*), that oppress their own Self.
All of the affected people are therefore dominated by the named strange Absolutes.
Similar constellations can be found in bigger groups or societies.
There are other illustrations as well:
Left hand side: People circle around three, second-rate fix points. They create an unstable wholeness.
Motto: “We (A, B, C, D) agree that there are 3 priorities in our lives (here: achievement*, intellect* and fidelity*).
They are our unconditional goals in life. They give us self-affirmation, fortune, sense, stability etc.
We submit ourselves to them.”
Right hand side: Possible “orbits” of these three persons around the three sA.
Although those people are individuals, they are mentally connected with each other through the sA and represent a whole, a system of collusion. One sees, that the system of collusion is marked by the fact that it does not have one center but multiple centers which are orbited by these persons. They can be compared to fix points although they are really not. They may be called second-rate centers or second-rate fix points. The affected people “wobble” around them. Their orbit is more similar to an ellipse than an actual circle (Greek: ellipsis = deficiency). 117As I said, in this example, father or mother themselves (and what they represent) or else a person may form a wrong center point in the system. One may also refer to it as an unconscious, strange community-self, an unconscious, joint pseudo-identity, or as collective, strange absolutization/ collective It, which are the basis of those systems.
This system is dominated by a certain spirit. Everything of the actual Self, such as identity, right of self-determination, self esteem, self-security and so on, is made dependent on the collective, strange Absolutes (sA). Therefore, there is some sort of pressure to adapt for all the members of the system. Everybody has to function a certain way in order for the system to work. Even though the sA give the affected people what they cannot achieve themselves (at least they believe so) but at the same time, they are like holes that have to be stuffed constantly or like predators that have to be fed all the time. The food that they like the most is the Self. The sA partly protect the affected people but also expect them to give up their Selves.
The ambivalent role of fixated familiar mindsets, taboos, principles or ideologies was mentioned before.
The created wholeness with its different centers is only stable as long as the members confirm it to be so. As soon as one person questions one point, or does not fulfill the expected role anymore, the whole system becomes unstable. As long as that does not happen, the system can be compared to a conspiratorial unity with strict rituals. If someone does not follow those rituals, that person has to expect sanctions. Instead of achieving free self-determination, everyone is stuck in the circle of common absolutizations. Family therapists also refer to this as ‘family-myth’. Ferreira said that such as any other myth, that the family-myth expresses shared beliefs about humans and their relationship within families. They are convictions, that are accepted and viewed as something holy, although they include a great variety of falsehood. The family-myth dictates the member’s roles. Those roles and duties are accepted fully, even if they are absolutely wrong and fatuous in reality. Nobody would dare to reassess them nor to change them.118Quotation from M. Selvini Palazzoli. The quote lifts very emphatically the central role of what I call strange Absolute (sA). If a member of the family/system tries to play a role other than the one assigned, it will be seen and treated as a betrayal. 119The unadapted member usually comes into a counter-role (e.g., black sheep) which restores a certain system equilibrium. Or it is liquidated, brought to zero. To compensate, however, an external enemy image can also serve. Even if the change would be beneficial for all members, it is initially viewed as danger that causes resistance. The resistance is stronger the more one or another member of the system has something to lose, although in the long run it is the other way around.
Everything in this world can be absolutized and then take a central position. As mentioned before, certain ideologies, ideals, taboos and people or their ways of thinking are most commonly absolutized. This makes them the cause of collusions. Especially concerning relatives, a person often mistakenly believes that it is love to give up their right to self-determination and to place the other person at the center of their being.
It can be distinguished,:
• identical (or symmetric) collusion: People who are part of the collusion have the same sA.
• complementary collusion: The absolutizations complement each other.
• mirror-image collusion: The sA are primarily opposites (+sA # ‒sA) but the reversed sides match each other (= pact of the opposites).
In the example given above, all the affected people have the same fixated centers. The main motto of the complementary collusion is: “I fulfill your unconditional desires if you fulfill mine in return.” That kind of ‘teamwork’ is even stronger if the members have certain talents – or even: if everyone must do it. So if one member has to achieve a certain thing, and another person has to give it to him.
Example – different strange Absolutes, that work in a complementary collusive way:
At first, these people are like in a wheel of fortune: their ideals * and taboos * complement each other and they can both be just as the other one needs them. At a later stage, it becomes clear that they have to be the way the other person needs them. The absolutized positive* has to be given at any cost, whereas the absolutized negative* has to be defended at any cost. These or other collusions are only possible if those affected people are not determined by the actual Self but by sA.
People may only be dependent within the system
and collusively connected if they are also sA-determined themselves.
Whether it is an identical or a complementary collusion: The initial wheel of fortune eventually turns into a vicious circle (see below). Since the dependence is mainly unconsciously, it takes a long time to analyze the patterns of collusion. The affected people initially have a feeling of a strong common bond such as “We are creating an ideal whole together”, or “We agreed that we will always be there for each other”, “Your luck is my luck”, “Only you make me happy”, or even “It does not matter how I am, as long as you are feeling good.”
Such symbiotic feelings are experienced as very pleasant by people, mainly in the beginning of a relationship. That is the +* side of collective misabsolutizations but that is inextricably connected to a ‒* and a 0-side. The core of the later combats can already be seen inside of them.
This situation could be symbolized as follows:
Necessity of a balance between two people.
The smaller the same basis, the less scope there is for the two P in the system.
The basis is narrower the farther the sA is to the actual A.
Illustration: symbol of collusion between a man and a woman. 120Instead of “man” or “woman” or any other relationship such as between mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister or anybody else or something may be.
Both cores (Selves) are not free/independent, as it would be optimal but overlap each other. One is within the core of the other, one is the other´s strange Self.
Left: The man determines the woman. Center: She determines him. Right: The mutual heteronomy put together.
Both have a symbiotic, dependent relationship. He is within her core and she is within his core. In the beginning, they are complementary, although he is a strange Self for her and she is a strange Self for him. One is the other´s self-replacement. Such as: One is the other´s happiness because they cannot be happy enough on their own. Therefore each one also has to be the other person’s happiness. Or one is the other´s compensatory self-protection, self-esteem, self-determination etc. One´s desire becomes the other´s command. Each one has primary responsibility for the other one as well, which also limits the own right of self-determination. That also means: All people that play a part in a collusion give up their self-determination (partly). They then live a secondary, non-actual, heteronomous life, instead of a life that is based on voluntariness and self-determination.
Everybody is in control of everyone else. If a woman has a lot of sex appeal, she might dominate the man.
But at the same time, she makes to become the sex object of the man who therefore dominates her, too. Both of them dominate and are dominated at the same time. They are experiencing a +*(thrill) emotion if they receive whatever matches their +sA. But they also feel bad (‒*) if they lose it or if they are being confronted with their ‒sA. Then, there will be a crisis.
Another picture: Both work with each other like (uneven) gear-wheels: Wherever one person has a deficiency, the other person has something to give.
A lot of times, the patterns of collusion are cross-generational and can be found in the relationships of the parents and the children. In the next generation, one often finds the same sA (or collusive pattern) or the opposite! You may think of it as many gear-wheels, like a clock mechanism. Functioning is the top priority. The individuals represent the wheels in a gearbox (family, group, state). It is not surprising that some people feel like they are only a small gearwheel within a giant gearbox? If you look at the bigger picture you will realize that every single person (wheel) has to function/work in a certain way because the person him-/herself and all the others need it that way. Everybody has to turn him-/herself and all the others into slaves of their own strange Absolutes.
There are different sorts of dependence of the affected people within the system of collusion. It may come mainly from one person, whereas the others are just following (unknowingly). However, it is more common that all of the affected people are part of something that causes dependence and that also causes the others of the system to subjugate. To a certain extent, that is normal. Every person is somewhat heteronomous and transfers this to other people. There, the person is manipulable, corruptible, suppressed and debased.
As strong as the bonding powers may be, there will be more and more of a counter-tendency within the system, of trying to burst the bonds and to leave the system – especially when it comes to the members of the system that have to pay the highest cost for these fixations.
Typical Examples for Collusions
• Old, wealthy man and young, poor woman (complementary collusion)
• Prostitution: The man is giving the woman money in order to have sex, which he needs (or believes to need), she gives him sex and receives the money she needs.
• Male helper – ill woman
• Admiring mother – thankful son
• Strict parents – obedient daughter.
• Harmony seeking woman who desires to be loved – man who seeks acknowledgment.
• Partners who correspond in anti-sex moral (identical collusion): Both have a fixated view:
Sex is dirty, they fear sex (‒*). Advantage: No quarrel , no conflicts; Disadvantage: No pleasure.
• Him: addicted to alcohol and therefore impotent; Her: cannot be alone, gives him alcohol, causes him (unknowingly?) to stay impotent and prevents him from being interested in other women. He stays with her and secures his nursing and she does not have to stay alone.
In literature the following examples are usually mentioned: The collusion of a helper and a person in need (= oral collusion), a person who idealizes and a person that has been idealized
(= narcissistic collusion), ruler and sufferer (= anal-sadistic collusion), sexual leader and the one being led (= phallic-oedipal collusion). Additional examples: Sadomasochistic relationship; Familiar collusion with poster child and black sheep; Victim-offender-collusion and so on. 121See in particular: Jürg Willi: `Die Zweierbeziehung´, Rowohlt TB 1975/ 2012.
There is an endless amount of such patterns of dependence. They can appear in relationships, families, or other groups and societies.
What is the Common of these Collusion Systems?
• They are being created if misabsolutizations and negations dominate a system.
• Factual issues, that interfere with the sA, are taken personally.
• The affected person is dependent on his/her own strange Self and the ones of others.
• Everybody in the system is conditioned to those sS. Everyone in those areas is manipulable,
corruptible, alienated, dependent and became an object there.
• Everybody experiences the common sS as more important than the own actual Self.
• Everybody becomes an expedient (to reach the sA).
• Everybody is in the area of the others Self.
• Everybody only loves him-/herself under certain circumstances if the sS-requirements
are being fulfilled.
• Everybody does not love him-/herself and others enough.
• The members sacrifice (partly) the most precious thing they have, the actual Self,
for something Relative.
• In the beginning, the collusion has more subjective advantages than disadvantages to offer.
• Everybody gives up his/her first-rate responsibility for him-/herself and the others. At first that appears to be relieving. Nobody has first-rate responsibility anymore, which looks like a perfect deal. Eventually, that luck of fortune turns into a kind of clock mechanism.
While the advantages of the collusion are in the foreground in the beginning, the high is coming to an end in this phase. The system is still working but it takes much more effort. The advantages and disadvantages of collusion are still balanced. The system is in a deadlock-position. Everybody gives the others what he/she has to give and is still able to meet the requirements. The reciprocity is still balanced. Since the advantages of the collusion become less, the system begins to be in a dilemma: The previous balance becomes too expensive but venturing something new seems too risky. The question is: Who has to pay for the dilemma? And: Who is taking the effort to solve the common problem?
“Kill your neighbor as yourself” (Andre´ Glucksmann)
In the crisis, all the extremes become more apparent. The system loses its balance.
(See also `Reversal into the opposite´).
A crisis is developed if the compensation forces of the members are exceeded. It is the time of mutual set-off, blame assignments, in which everyone also has a piece of right. (Common example: He drinks because she is nagging, she is nagging because he drinks).
The crisis happens along with similar intra-psychical processes. The crisis of the collusive relationship is preprogrammed if the affected people did not find a deeper solution so far. 122From a religious point of view, relationships that are not based on +A are particularly vulnerable. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.] Why? I believe we human beings are designed for an absolute, unconditional love, which nobody but only God can give us but this is also not a guarantee for a happy relationship.
The disadvantages of those relationship-patterns become more apparent:
One is in control of the other. Everybody becomes more manipulable and corruptible. Everyone gives too much and sucks the other at the same time. They all become more and more irritated. That becomes understandable, as both experience some kind of love-deficiency and the compensatory-love is not giving enough. Both desire true love more and more. The only option they see is to give love by fulfilling each others sS-requirements. Since the affected people only love each other under certain prerequisites, it is hard to keep up the love, especially if the other person’s love seems to disappear as well. ”I sacrificed myself for you.” “I did not love myself anymore, I only loved you.” Sentences like that can be heard in almost every relationship-crisis. Both experience more pressure the more the crisis grows. Both of them have to put much more effort into the relationship, to be happy. The freedom they have becomes steadily smaller and the dependency becomes steadily bigger.
In this phase, everyone feels like being the other person´s object of satisfaction (not without good reason). And indeed: They abuse each other and themselves (usually unknowingly) to keep their own +sA and to fend the ‒sA. The young, poor woman (example above) will accuse the old, wealthy man of viewing her as sex-object, whereas the man will accuse the woman of only being after his money. They are both somewhat right when saying: “You make me dependent on you. You suck me dry. I am only an object for you, only an instrument to satisfy your wishes (sA)”.
In this situation, the affected people argument with half-truths, where they view themselves as the only victim. They do not mention the other half of the truth: That they allowed the other person to act as an offender or that they offered to be treated as a victim. They will say “you do not love me”, whereas they do not love themselves either. They view themselves as losers and the partner as the winner, which is not accurate. They ignore the fact that the main reason for the crisis is not the lack of love to the other person but to something Relative. It is love on the roundabout way, “wrong” and fixated love, and all people included in the situation come off badly. Everybody is betrayed. However, the affected people usually have no overview. They do not realize what kind of unconscious dynamics caused them to be victims. Those people remain in a vicious circle, such as “I will only give you what you need if you give me what I need”, or “If you do not love me anymore, I will not love you either.”
Soon, there will be a fight. The affected people entrench themselves and fight for the survival of the mental life. In reality, they fight for the survival of their strange Selves. They are convinced that they cannot live without them. The partners usually argument on different levels: On the sS-level, or on the Self-level. The sS-levels are contrary in this phase and also contradict the Self-level. Therefore, those people live and talk at cross purposes with each other.
The communication, argumentation and eventually the fight of the partners is mainly about the sS* (arrows).
People take different standpoints and therefore talk at cross purposes. Direct communication has stopped (||).
Such as the strange Absolutes were a big part of the relationship in the beginning, they are also the main focus in the fights.
Jürg Willi: ”Partners often represent themselves as a polarized unit that is being held together by a common issue of dispute”.123Jürg Willi: `Die Zweierbeziehung´, Rowohlt, p. 14Unconsciously but accurately the partners injure their strange Selves. Those are the sore points because there is no actual Self in those spheres (no self-protection, no self-esteem, no self-identity). Thus the attacks on the Absolutes will be experienced as an attack on the respective person him-/herself. 124If P puts a matter above itself and identifies with it, then it means attacking on its own person from this point of view if someone attacks the thing. Therefore, the attacked person feels like he/she has to fight for his/her right of existence, even for his/her life. The use of absolute-terms such as “always”, “never”, “definitely”, “impossible” is another indicator that the conflicts take place in the absolute-sphere of the person.
Let’s take another look at the crisis situation using the example of the boat without keel (= without + A), where two people maintain an expensive balance. Here, the complex dynamics in which the system members are located, is particularly clear:
They both stabilize and burden each other at the same time. They act right and wrong simultaneously. Right because they stabilize the system and wrong because the stabilization is of a very high cost and because they do not risk a change. So everyone can rightly accuse the other person of being wrong. But with the same right everyone will be able to assert that he stabilizes only the system and a change makes danger.
“You are the only reason I lean back so far if I did not do that, you would fall into the water.” “That is your way of thanking me for my sacrifices that you’re blaming me now.”
The other person may argue with the fact that he/she has to lean out even further to balance the boat out because the other person is already leaning out so far. Both sides may have good intentions but receive only criticism for it. The affected person might even query him-/herself in silence. That way the circle is closed: I, or the others, or everyone is doing it wrong. “How one does it, it is wrong.” The system destroys itself, although nobody wanted it. 125Of course, not all people are always good with others. But no one can judge from the outside about the motivation of the others. Therefore, it is wise to suppose initially a positive motivation of all system members, without excluding a negative one.
It is a fallacy to think that a person could free oneself by taking a counter position. The person remains in the system and stabilizes it even more. Only a positive destabilization (sitting relaxed inside of the boat, or -better- choosing a boat with a keel), or leaving the system will help. However, that is usually viewed negatively by the other members of the system because the system temporarily becomes unstable.
If one member does not fulfill the common sA-requirements anymore and stops being manipulable, or he/she will not be able to be part of the stabilization of the system – then the system comes into a crisis and this member will encounter Resistance (this is internal and external).
If a system faces the danger of decompensation, it can be compared to a boat that is about to keel over. One of the most important tries to stabilize the (family-)system, is the emergency-solution with illness. 126Elsewhere, unconscious emergency solutions are mentioned →`Emergency by disease´. The person sacrifices his/her health to stabilize the system. He/she is victim and martyr for the system.
Barbara Gordon describes in her book “I´m dancing as fast as I can” particularly impressively theoverly high price for a “happy” but dependent relationship and how quickly it can tip over to its opposite.
“I would rather be sick than seeing the others being sick”, “It is better to be sick than to call into question the family.” Such are the unconscious mottoes of the patient and he/she does not have to question its own absolutizations. Since the system becomes more and more self-destroying (the more sA-determined it is), the costs will be raising. Not everyone is paying the same price though. Even if the index patient often pays the highest price, it will nevertheless be sensible for the therapist to accept all members of the system and their situation and not to take a single-point position. Only if there is an accepting attitude it will be possible to try actual and deeper solutions which are usually painful for the included people, although they are an advantage in the long run.
(See also `Resistance´ and concerning therapy `The umbilical cord´).
This chapter is mainly concerned with the development of symptoms or mental disorders by focusing on the various causative sA / Its or complexes. S. Freud imagined that psychic powers can act such as physical forces with vectors. Then the sum of the energy would be converted into a symptom. Something similar is true of the field theory of Kurt Lewin, which states that “out of an arrangement of psychologically relevant forces (vector forces), individual behavior emerges.” 127https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldtheorie_%28Psychologie%29, 2013. Von Uexküll created the term of “changing function units”. 128https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symptomwandel, 2013.
These conceptions correspond to those of this thesis, which regard the sS/Its and their complexes as dominating “function units” with corresponding vectors.
I assume the following hypotheses:
• Symptoms are equivocal because different reasons may cause symptoms to occur.
• Every inversion has the potential to cause/support any symptom, although with varying
• Psychical symptoms may have organic causes.
• Symptoms may be signs of an aberration or a misbehavior of the affected person
• The appearance of symptoms may also have nothing to do with the person concerned but
originate from other sources (environment, other people, etc.) Rarely are they from + A. 129Relative negative can come also from God1 and from the ‒A relative positive but God1 aims ultimately at the + A and the ‒A has the negative to the goal. Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.
• Finally, symptoms can also be an expression of positive development; as in withdrawal,
when the individual tries to relativize the It/sA-complexes on which he is dependent.
• Ordinarily, many factors together will cause a symptom or a mental disorder.
The sorts of conditions are similar to the ones of the emergence of weather or of accidents.
The weather forecast is probably still easier than the ‘forecast’ of symptoms. In most cases, the context of cause and symptoms is hardly able to indicate. Some conditions seem more constant, others more variable. Organic or even genetic causes are more constant, whereas psychical or mental influences are more variable. Even a very brief influence may cause a symptomatology, such as the last straw will break the camel’s back.
The emergence of symptoms appears to be dependent on the following factors:
• What kind of It/sA are being effective? The kind of It/sA also determines the effects.
• What effects does the +sA, or the ‒sA have? The +sA mostly attracts (addiction), whereas the
‒sA causes fear.
• What is the difference in the effects of a +sA in the shape of a person (idol*) and an object, or
• How is the interaction and how influences that affect the person?
• How is the person structured? Organically or psychically.
• Where are their “black”, “white” or 0 points, where P is seducible, able to be frustrated, or without answer?
• If a dysfunction has been established, it will most likely affect the area, where the certain function is necessary or dominant. (Regarding psychosomatic medicine: skin: mostly contact; gastro-intestinal tract: mostly ingestion and excretion; liver and pancreas: mostly processing/digesting; kidney: mostly excretion; larynx: mostly output of information etc.) However, some authors exaggerate those connections.
• How are the outer circumstances?
• How is the further inner/outer interaction between all the effective powers?
There are many factors that determine what kind of psychical or mental disorder is being developed. Or as Heimann said: The symptom is the “Common end of complicated condition connections.“ 130Heimann s. Bibliography.
As mentioned, I believe that inversions play a big role as primary causes.
In addition, I am convinced that the cause of mental disorder is less specific than generally meant. One reason for the small specificity of the causes can be found within the “spreading and compression” of the effects (discussed below).
E. Bleuler writes: “Contrary to previous expectations, one and the same damage, which has a psychological effect, may lead to many symptoms, and one and the same symptom may have many causes.”131E. Bleuler s. Bibliography p. 113.
Similar A.R. Brunoni: “… patients with different mental disorders can share similar symptoms, whereas those with the same diagnosis might have different symptoms.”132A.R. Brunoni in http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rpc/v44n6/0101-6083-rpc-44-06-0154.pdf , 2017. L. Ciompi has attributed these experiences to various generalization and abstraction processes.
In the context of this publication, that means:
All It/sA and their complexes scatter in such a way that they can cause many disorders, such as all pr disorders may be caused by various It/sA and their complexes.
None of those entities has only one effect but multiple effects with three contradicting ones each (pro-, contra- and 0). If we assume that every person is carrying a great number of such complexes, then that also means that there is a great variety of different factors of effects.
Read from left to right, those graphics illustrate the following aspects of spreading and compression:
– The picture on the far left illustrates how one It (*) is the cause of three opposite vectors. 133For the sake of simplicity, this is only shown differently and not in opposite directions. There is one main-vector (solid arrow) and two side-vectors (dashed arrows). The main-vector is based on the dominating It-part (here: +pro-sA ) and the side-vectors are based on the contra-sA and the 0-part of the It. Every It “scatters” in three different directions. Even if there is only one main-effect seen superficially, the side-effects have a latent existence.
– The picture in the middle shows how different vectors of two Its work together:
In our example, the main-effects and the side-effects of the two Its potentiate in a way that creates compression.
The top compression has a positive connotation (such as a positive condition), the middle has a negative connotation (negative condition), and the bottom compression has a 0 connotation (deficit).
– The right picture illustrates how the situation within a person can be imagined:
The two Its (*) that are located in the absolute sphere of a person (the Self) cause the described dysfunctions or disorders in the relative-sphere.
Spreading and compression illustrated as 3 stones that were thrown into the water.
They cause “spreading” as well as overlaps (“compression”). Also, there are different centers and distortions.
In the figurative sense, one can say that symptoms develop where the “waves” overlap. And that their origin and location (kind of symptom) also depends on the “water quality” (condition of the system) and on the shore (ambient conditions), at which the waves are reflected.
Spreading and Compression in More Detail
In the following graphic I tried to explain the effects of spreading and compression in the example of the absolutization in aspect 14 (truth / lie).
1. Here are shown only 21 aspects.134The numbering is not exactly the same as for the other individual aspects.
Similar to spreading and compression: generalization and abstraction.
2. In itself, the spreading actions come from attitudes (ideologies) that are not listed here but are listed in the Summary table in column E.
Explanations of Table
In the left column of the chart, the different aspects are listed and it is being illustrated, how the absolutization of aspect 14 causes potential factors of spreading on all of the other aspects.
It can be differentiated between a main vector and many side-vectors.
1. Frank is lying to John. Following aspect 14, John will experience a disturbance of truth. Since the lie is hurting his self-sphere, the “whole John” is affected. That means that it is not only the disturbance of truth that is developing within John but (at least potentially) a disorder of the entire psychical sphere (all aspects): a more or less severe disorder is being developed of his I, of his relationships, of his inner structures and psychic conditions, ownership, opportunities, orders, orientations, freedom, success, reality, behavior, information, values, qualities, past, time, perspective, love, protection and safety (and so on). Those aspects are differentially affected. This becomes quite clear when we specify what exactly Franz’s lie was. Let us pretend that Frank lied when he said: “John, your wife is cheating on you!”. John will not only internalize the lie itself but it will also affect the relationship and the intimacy to his wife. He will probably also feel worthless, be sad, feel some kind of loss, worry about the future, become tenser, dig in the past and so on. As mentioned before, those possibilities are illustrated in a simple way, as if the lie would hit a defenseless, uncritical John. However, an affected person will have some defense-mechanisms or solutions, which decide what is defended, internalized or solved. Seeing how difficult it is to analyze such a simple example, makes one realize how complicated such occurrences are in reality.
2. A woman is told by a doctor that she has cancer. If this information becomes of absolute relevance for her, it will affect the entire person, all the pr aspects, and it will cause certain changes and reactions (as illustrated in the table above).
3. As mentioned above, it could also be illustrated how all ideologies are affecting all the aspects (if they are defined as absolutized ideas).
On the right hand side of the “possibilities of spreading”, I marked a gray column with ~. This column symbolizes that the spreading factor meets an (usually) unknown personal so-being (genes, experiences, predisposition) that also determines the characteristics and the dynamics. Due to the individual variety I can mention it only briefly.
On the right hand side of the chart, disorders of functions and second-rate actions of aspect 14 are listed as they may be developed as consequences of absolutizations. Focusing on the first example, they are mostly created by an absolutized lie but may also be caused by any other aspect = “compression”.
Another example: If we start from a sexual impotence, it cannot only have arisen directly from disturbances in this aspect (here Asp. 2o) but also from disturbances of all other aspects – e.g. through an ego disorder, disturbance of relationship, by organic disturbances, by state or sensory disturbances, misconditionings, misorientations, inhibitions etc.
About the Lack of Specificity of the Causes and Consequences
I am convinced, that the fairly big lack of specificity of the causes of mental disorders is also the reason for the lack of specificity of the theories that try to explain the different psychical /psychosomatic illnesses. They seem to be exchangeable at a certain point, as you can see when comparing theories of genesis of different illnesses such as anorexia, rheumatism, depression, fibromyalgia, migraine, stutter etc. One could call it the law of incompleteness of psychological knowledge and the discriminability of the causes of psychological occurrence. I see a big resemblance if not even common roots, in the incompleteness theorems by K. Gödel. 135S. Bibliography.
I also see parallels to the theory of spectrum disorders. 136https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_disorder, 2016. See also the opinion of A.R. Brunoni below.
A sketchy superficial attempt to derive symptoms/illnesses from simple preconditions. Examples:
• Fear, caused by:
1. losing +sA, or fear of its disadvantages.
2. occurrence of ‒sA.
3. – of 0.
If something becomes +sA, then I will be scared that I cannot fulfill its demands or that I could lose it. If something becomes ‒sA, I will be scared that it will become. If something becomes 0, I will be scared that I have nothing at all.
• Schizophrenia: If splittings are in the foreground, especially if one or more ambivalent Its determine the person for a longer time. (Otherwise see Causes for schizophrenia in ‘Psychiatry’).
• Acoustic hallucinations: `P² listens too much to what other P’s say´. P² hears voices of the `homunculus’. (For details, see Hallucinations).
• Eating disorders: By absolutizing in the areas of reception and possession in general and eating and similar topics specifically.
• Depression: loss of +sA, while ‒sA or s0 are dominating.
• Mania: Absence of ‒sA, s0 and +A, while +sA (that P is identified with) is dominating.
• Obsessive-compulsive disorder: only if certain +sA are being fulfilled and ‒sA are being fended, the patient will feel secure.
(Further see part `Psychiatry´)
Summary: The psychical symptoms are usually ambiguous, sometimes equivocal and contradicting. That means that they usually have a pro- and a contra-meaning. Therefore, the opposite interpretation of a symptom is very likely, too.
“I believe that diseases are keys that can open certain gates for us. I believe there exist
certain gates which only disease can open. […]
And perhaps illness shuts us off from certain truths but health cuts us off from other truths.” André Gide
Regarding the role and the meaning of illness and health, I assume the following hypotheses:
• Suffering /illness/symptoms as well as well-being/health, are Relatives.
• Every of this Relative may have a positive or a negative (or 0) meaning /relevance objectively.
• Subjective feelings and objective situations are often not congruent.
• Suffering /illness or well-being/health, which function itself as sA, may have qualitatively equal effects/consequences, or opposite and paradoxical effects/consequences.
• To gain a +sA, or to fend off a ‒sA, P may sacrifice his/her health.
• At a high cost, illness may save us from the excessive demands of sA. Illness may force us to
do what we are too scared to do (or have no will): to relativize the power of the sA. 137As I explained, I distinguish between first-rate and second-rate ( “neurotic”) diseases.
If I do not specifically label the term ‘disease’, then it is about the latter, second-rate diseases, which are in the foreground in this section.
– For + sufferings: many crises, such as cord clamping, birth pain, pain of parting, pain after surgery, withdrawal, rehab, compassion.
– `Bad healths´: If they are based on the expense of others or must be achieved at all costs.
Similar: Actual suffering and substitute-suffering. KW: Two kind of sufferings.
Is there ‘actual’ and ‘non-actual’ suffering/illness?
• Actual suffering (suffering¹). Actual = usually fateful, guiltless (regarding the affected person).
• Substitute-suffering = indirect, shifted, senseless, unnecessary or guilty suffering. Too much suffering of the relatively negative.
Or suffering because it is profitable (→ Morbid Gain).
C.G. Jung came up with the hypothesis: “Neurosis is always a substitute for legitimate suffering”. Neuroses would be the suffering from the non-actual. So, whoever avoids actual suffering, will face substitute-suffering.
With my words: Substitute-suffering emerges if the requirements of the It (and the It requires a lot) are not being fulfilled and that´s why the It punishes the person. These costs, usually in shape of a symptom or an illness, means also a partial self-abandonment of P².
I.e. P² has to sacrifice a part of the Self to satisfy the It.
But: In the long run, the substitute-suffering will be greater than the actual one.
This also means: Accepting the actual suffering will diminish the substitute-suffering tremendously. (→ First A then B)
“More stress than in Auschwitz there was hardly anywhere else, and right there were the typical psychosomatic diseases that are so much taken for stress-related, virtually disappeared from the earth.”138 https://vitaosphaere.wordpress.com/tag/stressoren/
An additional question to the one that was just discussed is if illnesses/symptoms have a sense.
Illness is relative. Therefore I believe that it can only be either relatively sensible or relatively senseless.
In individual cases that would be hard to determine.
A few examples will illustrate the difficulty of determination:
If the dentist puts us through pain by pulling out a tooth, then it is a sensible pain.
If a woman gives birth to a child, she will suffer it as a very sensible event. However, if a woman is being raped, that pain/ suffering becomes senseless to me. 139I emphasize that extra because there are people who see a sense in every suffering, in every illness. The rape itself is absolutely senseless – the resulting suffering is from a theoretical perspective, perhaps `only’ almost absolutely senseless. At 99.9% of senselessness, a “sense ” could be that we as the person concerned recognize the dangerousness of such ‒A and protect us and our children from it. I believe; all symptoms appear very nonsensical when they are the result of other people’s mistakes.
Symptoms that are based on the +A are usually very sensible, such as withdrawal phenomenons, or warning signs by excessive demands (such as burn-out).
The symptoms and illnesses that are in the focus of this publication and that are caused by inversion neither appear as absolutely sensible, nor as senseless. Most of the times they are an expression of emergency-, or substitute-solutions that come along with substitute-suffering and therefore also some kind of “substitute-sense/reason”.
Definition: gain, that an ill person receives from his/her illness. 140U.H. Peters 1999.
Usual classification: (based on S. Freud)
Primary morbid gain: inner/subjective gain.
Secondary morbid gain: outer/objective gain (retirement, rest).
Tertiary morbid gain: gain for the environment of the ill person.
1) normal morbid gain
2) second-rate, “neurotic” morbid gain.
About 1) “Normal” morbid gain:
Based on the hypothesis that no Relative is absolutely positive or absolutely negative, it is also normal that illness also has a positive part. That case is very common. One is ill and stays at home, does not have to work and is probably treated well and so on. That is normal and there is no need for treatment.
About 2) This is about the case when illness or the causes of illness became something too positive that is causing more advantages than disadvantages for the affected person. It can be compared to the morbid gain determined by S. Freud. This second-rate, or ‘neurotic’ morbid gain (which does not mean that it is only found when neuroses appear) mostly occurs if illnesses or its causes have no relative but absolute importance and therefore became sA. That means that the affected person needs the advantages of the illness to maintain mental stability. Thereby they gain relevance and power, which lets their dynamics appear so confusing.
From the point of view of P², the disease prevents worse (loss of +sA/ occurrence of ‒sA). With the illness, P² has an alibi when it comes to the demands of It/sA. With the sacrifice of health, the subjectively best can be maintained and the subjectively worst can be avoided. The illness allows P² to be excused and to be reconciled with sA. A major disadvantage, however, is that the inversion consequences persist. These are above all: partial self-abandonment and further on disease. 141The person has advantages by the Its only in the short term but in the long run more disadvantages. What Freud specifically said about the repression (“Preservation of a repression presupposes a constant expenditure of force, and its abolition means economically a saving.”) (https://www.offenesbuch.com/g119506 ) – one could formulate in general: “The maintenance of an It-system (second-rate system) costs the person a lot of strength that he/she would save on in a first-rate system.”
Morbid gain in detail: Illness may allow a person finding sense in life (if it cannot be found without illness); Illness may allow to find an identity (if it cannot be found without); Illness may cause security (one is used to the role as a patient so that it gives security); Illness may allow gaining autonomy; Illness may allow to maintain the Ego or at least the strange Self; Illness may allow to live an easier life (protect ones self from requirements and overextension); Illness may give more time; Illness may become an important weapon; Illness may allow to manipulate people; Illness may cause to receive more love and attention from others; Illness may give more freedom; 142Again and again I have experienced how disease (even cancer) can lead to a great (oversize?) feeling of freedom among some affected persons. Perhaps also because we did not take the liberty when we were still healthy, which we now receive, albeit at a high price. Perhaps it was also because we saw that what we were perhaps too afraid of was not so much to fear. Or, religiously, the experience that God is stronger than all illness and death. Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology. Illness may allow proceeding one’s own will; Illness may allow living aggression or other negative feelings; Illness may allow to hold on to old habits; Illness may cause more orientation and order in one’s life. Illness often has an alibi-function and is a relieving mechanism of self-punishment to be free from actual (or imagined) guilt. Illness may cause balance within the person/the system that is of high cost etc.
Illness as a protection against the negative* can also be understood as a mirror image, of the ‘+list’ above. Illness may be a protection against the senselessness of life; Illness may be a protection against the loss of identity and alienation; Illness may be a protection against insecurity, dependence and the loss of the Self. 143We are afraid of the ‒sA, we can also be afraid of the F0 but even before the + sA we can fear (for example, that we lose a + sA or that it does not keep what it promises or that it is too expensive). 144I have the impression that we often shift the most negative existential problem, our death, to a different, milder level, namely that of the disease because we can thus prepare ourselves to death in a more tolerable way and, furthermore, that we still have everything under our control but, at the same time, the price of the need to continue the disease.
Illness may also protect from the loss of all +*.
The listings make it more obvious that the (‘neurotic’) morbid gain is only a substitute-gain/ substitute-protection of high cost. However, it is also an emergency solution, that may save one’s life in an emergency situation. Therefore, it should not be viewed as taboo.
(For more information see the unabridged version).
An anorexic young woman compensates her dependence on her parents, by dominating with her illness over her parents, thus securing a substitute independence. At the same time, the dominance and control of the parents remain untouched. On the other hand, questionable independence on the one hand and questionable dominance, on the other hand, keep the balance with the price of the disease. Changing the role of one system member would create a crisis that is normal in this process of detachment. But since, like every crisis, it does not automatically end in a positive emergence or solution, there is also the risk of a failure and those people concerned then avoid these crises, however somebody has to pay some price for it.
Obviously there are correlations between God1 and mental health, because whoever believes that he is absolutely loved and nothing last can happen to him is also more resilient. But: even the most devout can get sick.
Even God1 can cause suffering or even make somebody sick, albeit rarely. Why?
The positive Absolute is God1 and not health and well-being, just as suffering and sickness are not absolutely negative. They are Relativa. This means that the relative positive (health, well-being, etc.) can also be negative and, on the other hand, the relative negative (illness, suffering, etc.) can also be positive. And that also means that positive illness, suffering etc. can come from the positive Absolute, i.e. from God1, and negative health, well-being etc. can come from the negative Absolute (‒A). But since health and illness are predominantly positive resp. negative, that´s why the origin of the predominant negative from the absolute positive (God1) resp. the origin of the predominant positive from the absolute negative (−A) is the exception.
These abstract assumptions also find their concrete form in human relationships. If we see the relationship between God1 and us like a love relationship between people, it becomes clear that negative feelings / suffering / or even injuries can also come from a loving person, although the motivation behind it is a positive one. This motivation from God1 is just as difficult for us humans to recognize as our children often fail to recognize the importance of frustration or punishment. Both the killer and the surgeon hurt us, even though the motives behind them are completely opposite. On the one hand, you can tell someone bitter truths and thereby hurt them, but you can help – on the other hand, you can spoil someone and thereby cause them harm. Incorrect consideration, avoidance of suffering, absolutization of health and well-being etc. are as questionable as their opposite. Equally questionable are some “Christian” views that see every suffering or disease as a punishment from God or those that postulate an unconditional connection between God and healing. Even though God does not cause “negative suffering”, He obviously allows it.We will cover the reasons for this in the next section “Theodicy”.
How can we know what is life and death if we don’t know who God is?
[Based on Confucius: “If we don’t know life, how can we know death?”]
Dedicated to my grandson Felix.
Theodicy = theós ‚God‘ and díkē ‚justice‘ = justification and vindication of God.
Theodicy is an attempt to answer the question of why a good and all-powerful God permits the occurrence of evil. Or: Why God does not fulfill some prayers? Can God be justified? (Theodicy).
The problem of theodicy is one of the most important problems of theology, and perhaps of humanity in general. Because, as with all metaphysical problems, a solution in the scientific sense is not possible – I try a credible explanations.
Theologians usually distinguish between the following “evils”:
1. The “moral evils” (what people do to themselves)
2. The “natural evils” (natural disasters, transience)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#Jewish_anti-theodicy, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodizee ,
Distinguished from this are painful, but appropriate, positive circumstances such as processes of cutting the cord, “growing pains”, meaningful frustrations, etc. That means we experience some things painfully, although it is of use to us. Thus it would be wrong if God or parents would eliminate this “positive suffering” towards children.
It should also be considered that every earthly suffering, including death, from the point of view of God, or according to Christian faith, ultimately (!) has only relative significance. Therefore, God only needed a relative justification, which I am trying to do here.
1. The “moral evils”
Regarding the causation of the “moral evils”, theologians largely agree that they are the result of the mistakes / sins of people since God has given people the freedom to act in this way. (`free will defense´). Here God appears justified because it is a token of his love for us when he gives us the freedom to do evil against his will, because a relationship without freedom of choice is not love.
2. The “natural evils”.
This means: suffering is not directly caused by humans, but by natural disasters, transience, some diseases, etc. – evils, therefore, which are already given to man and are present everywhere in nature.
Obviously theology has no satisfactory answer here.
[Hint: My understanding of God does not always correspond to the official theology.]
My hypothesis on God’s justification:
As Adams and Eves we are also responsible for the “natural evils”. How so?
If you want to solve the theodicy problem, I think you need another than our usual concept of time and space.
Similar Ludwig Wittgenstein: “The solution of the riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time.”145(Tractatus logico-philosophicus) The quotations from B. Russel, A. Whitehead and K. Goedel mentioned in the section `First-rate solutions´ can also be interpreted in this way.
If there is God, then He is above the laws of space and time. Didn’t Jesus also have different conceptions of space and time than the usual when he said: “I was before Abraham” or he was “with God from the beginning”? And if that is so, then we must look for the solution of the theodicy problem outside of the known laws of nature. But if we seek the solution of the theodicy problem only within our human limits, such as our mind, then we find no answer to the great final questions. Only if we cross these boundaries we can find credible, though not provable, answers. Also physics Physics has expanded our horizons with the theory of relativity and quantum entanglement and has questioned many of our previous findings.
See e.g., in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantenverschr%C3%A4nkung or
Therefore my attempt to explain is based on other than our previous ideas of space, time and our existence, even if this contradicts our feeling of a linear course of time and a clear spatial allocation.
If we disregard our previous conceptions, like the physicists, then the idea is to interpret us and our existence in a meta-temporal and meta-spatial manner and not to see Adam (Hebrew “human”) and Eve like two concrete individuals in the former paradise, but like prototypes or ‘archetypes’ that represent every single person who, like these, has separated from God and thus has lost his paradisiacal original state / has left paradise and now lives in a world that also contains “natural evils”. When and where we have separated from God, I can quite imagine with this aforementioned other space-time concepts (independent of time in a parallel kingdom of God / “paradise”? “Parallel universe”?).
1. This assumption is somewhat similar to the Many-Worlds-Theory of Everett (A. Loichinger) and the ideas of reincarnation in Buddhism and Hinduism – with the crucial difference, however, that Christianity does not know of overwhelming, seemingly endless reincarnations.
2. Christians have certain ideas about what comes after death. But why not what was before the birth?]
So I start from the assumption of a pre- or parallel existence of every human being beyond our world. That means that we have another existence beside our earthly existence, which is called Adam and Eve in the Bible, with which we are connected, like a quantum entanglement.
Quantum entanglement proves that something that belongs together can also form a unit despite the greatest distances and time differences. Aren’t our thoughts also free of space and time? Can’t two people be connected in thought? Don’t we think too materialistically, so that another broader view remains closed to us? In any case, I can identify with Adam very well. And who not? Don’t we keep eating from the apple of paradise with every sin?
(Angels are perhaps the ones who did not eat the apple like Adam and Eve and are therefore still in paradise).
And God gives us freedom of choice choice between good and bad – as I said, as sign of the love relationship with us.
If we identify with ‘Adam’ and ‘Eve’ in this way, then we and not God are responsible for both: for the moral and the “natural evils” – and God would be justified. God is justified – according to this concept- because his omnipotence and unlimited love do not contradict our sufferings. In my opinion, only an interpretation like this, which starts from a meta-temporal and meta-spatial perspective, can explain the contradictions between the omnipotence and love of God on the one hand and the “natural evils” on the other, what can also serve as “evidence” for such a hypothesis.
One can also say “upside down”: God’s justification makes it also credible that something like many or parallel worlds / existences exist.
If, according to this hypothesis, we humans are guilty of all evils and Jesus forgives all guilt, the question remains why we still suffer even though our guilt has been forgiven.
The guilt is gone – the consequences are not. Where is the grace of the Lord in that?
I think it is right that God forgives guilt. However, it is also right that people notice the negative consequences. Doesn’t that apply to every love relationship? Even lovers would make a mistake if they do not forgive guilt, but they would also make a mistake if they convey that guilt does not matter. Therefore, isn’t it right to become aware of our lying or deceiving? If our negative actions had no noticeable consequences, what would be the case? We’d probably get lost in chaos.
God allows freedom of choice. He does not force and incapacitate – like every lover – even if this is connected with suffering. Even if God tolerates suffering, He does not leave us alone. I believe that God still goes to the extreme limit of love up today to minimize our suffering – just as He did in Jesus. Is this proof of His unconditional love not enough for us? Even if it is different from what I suspect, it is not because of God’s lack of goodness, but because of our small faith or shortsightedness or lack of imagination that some causes of suffering remain hidden from us. Does God need to justify Himself to us, even though it is we who need justification?
In the unabridged German version, I have described this topic on Hölderlin in more detail. But even there, as here because of the complex problem, there are only some thoughts relating to this work.
Hölderlin and Nietzsche are for me typical examples of people who got sick because of various strange Absolutes.
Especially Stefan Zweig146 in “The Struggle with the Daemon” described impressively the development of madness in Hölderlin´s and Nietzsche’s life. The term ‘demon’ of Zweig is largely the same as the `strange Absolute’ of this work.
Werner Ross also describes very accurately Nietzsche’s life and the genesis of his psychosis 147in “The Fearful Eagle”.
The analysis of both authors with respect to the development of the psychoses of Hölderlin and Nietzsche agrees with my metapsychiatric hypotheses even if the terminology is partly different. If one also compares the information of the authors about Hölderlin’s and Nietzsche’s symptoms with the data in the columns ‘It-Effects and Results’ of the Summary table, one finds there most again.
When Nietzsche’s friend Erwin Rohde writes about him: “An indescribable atmosphere of strangeness, something completely weird at that time, surrounded him … As if he came from a country where nobody else lives”148https://archive.org/stream/erwinrohdeeinbi00rohdgoog/erwinrohdeeinbi00rohdgoog_djvu.txt – this is what I name ‘strange person’ here.
When Nietzsche finally went insane, in the end, according to the hypotheses of this work, he lacked an Absolute that could compensate or correct the strange Absolutes with their contradictions.
Hölderlin, Nietzsche and many other psychotic people seem to me like “Yin-Yang-people” rolling into the abyss and are broken due to their contradictions – just as I presented in the section `Reversal into the opposite‘. What they lacked in the end, according to the hypotheses of this work, was an Absolute that could compensate or correct the strange Absolutes with their contradictions.
Did not Nietzsche similarly see it when he wrote: “But we feel as well that we are too weak … and that we are not the men to whom universal nature looks as her redeemers … we must be lifted up – and who are they that will uplift us?“149https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Schopenhauer_as_Educator , 2019. Emphasis of mine.
Regarding Hölderlin, Juan J. López-Ibor and María I López-Ibor adopt in their publication “Romanticism and Schizophrenia” similar views.150https://www.actaspsiquiatria.es/repositorio/16/91/ENG/16-91-ENG-201 -227-751202.pdf , 2014.
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.
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. (See also: “Christian” One-Sidednesses and Misinterpretations).
I = I in general ( I¹ = first-rate I, I² = strange I = Ego)
i.e. = id est (that is)
It = dominating entity/instance, consisting of 2 or 3 cores:
2 parts: all and nothing (“/ 0) = `dyad’ or
3 parts: pro-sA or + sA, contra-sA or -sA and 0 = `triad’
It/sA resp. It/sS: if I want to emphasize the absolute role of an It-part.
KW = keyword = headword
ns = new-strange/ new-second-rate (new secondary)
No. = Number
P = Person; P¹ = first-rate personality; P² = second-rate personality (often only P labeled)
pr = psychically relevant
r = relative
R = the Relative (R represents everything that is not A or 0.)
R* = Relativistic
resp. = respectively
s = strange = second-rate (²)[1
sA = strange resp. second-rate Absolute
pro-sA and contra-sA = opposing sA.
asA = absolutistic strange Absolute
rsA= relativistic strange Absolute
s0 (or 0) = strange, determining nothing(ness) = nihilistic
sS = strange Self
syn. = synonym
W = World, reality
WPI = world, person, I.
References of all parts see German Edition
See in https://new-psychiatry.com/wp-content/uploads/New-Psychiatry-Web.html#mozTocId417834