Author: Torsten Oettinger
2023-01-11, 8th Edition
Metapsychology Psychology Linguistics Philosophy Religion
Note: The `Summary table´ offers a very compressed textual and tabular overview. The links there allow the reader to quickly switch to the corresponding chapters and to keep the larger picture in mind.
In this part ‘METAPSYCHOLOGY’, I develop a general classification of everything that is psychically relevant.
What is new?
I assume an analogy between language on the one hand and the psychological relevant and the psyche on the other.
• Firstly, I hypothesize that everything that is psychically relevant is not only best expressed in language but can also be differentiated in analogy to basic language patterns. That´s what I name the `Differentiations´.
• Secondly, I assume that it is decisive what “fundamental meaning” the psychological Relevant one has.
Every psychological Relevant can have three fundamental meanings for us humans: absolute or relative or no meaning. This is what I call the ‘Dimensions‘ of the psychical Relevant.11. This is also the basic pattern of the classifications of all other chapters. 2. Because of their special role, I have capitalized the terms the psychical Relevant, the Absolute, the Relative, the Nothing, the It and the Self.
In the beginning was God,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God … (~ by John 1:1-4)
Definitions and Hypotheses
• Metapsychology is the theory of everything which is psychically relevant. 2I denote `everything that is relevant to the psyche shorter `the psychical Relevant´ (pR) to simplify matters. This is not exactly the same like the relevance
• Everything about which a person speaks or can speak is psychically relevant.
• The psychical Relevant is best expressed by way of language.
• General language structures are very suitable as analogies for the division of the psychical Relevant.
• Psychology is the theory of the personal psychical Relevant.
Based on the multiple meanings of the prefix ‘meta’ (above, between, behind, beyond),
I define metapsychology as a level of analysis above psychology, from which the latter can be surveyed and scrutinized. At the same time, metapsychology comprises and permeates all subjects which are associated with psychology. Among the disciplines connected with psychology are, first and foremost, psychiatry, as well as sociology, neurology, biology, and linguistics. However, I also include philosophy and theology which are partly superordinate.
The main subject of psychology is the psyche. The subject of metapsychology is all that which is important for the psyche, which interrelates with the psyche, has an impact on it and is able to reflect upon it from a higher level. Therefore, metapsychology examines and reflects upon what I name the psychical Relevant (pR). The consideration of metapsychology and its subject-matter, the psychical Relevant, is very adequate since an isolated analysis of the psyche alone neglects very important connections.
In my view, the examination of all aspects of our human existence should be undertaken, rather than limiting our analysis to facts which are only accessible by scientific methods. This means that in addition to all scientific insights acquired by academic psychology, attention should also be given to that which transcends our experiences, which is beyond the demonstrable and perceptible. Thus, all relevant meta-psychical, meta-empirical, philosophical and religious phenomena of existential importance should be considered.
In contrast to this perspective, the notion “metapsychology” is used – following Freud – by scholars of psychoanalysis to describe the dynamic, topical and economic interrelations of psychical phenomena.
Regarding the area of topography, Freud was primarily concerned with the concepts of the Ego, Id and Super-ego; regarding the area of psychodynamics, he investigated the mental forces between these entities of the psyche; regarding the area of economics, he examined the benefits of specific psychical processes for the person concerned.
This study also discusses structural, dynamic and qualitative aspects similar to the psychoanalytic ones. However, these are merely a small part of metapsychology and psychology and are presented from a different perspective. 3In this perspective, Freud’s` topography´ appears equivalent to the representatives of psychically relevant (pr) nouns and subjects; the dynamics equivalent to the pr verbs and predicates, and the economics equivalent to the representatives of the dimensions in particular.
More generally, one might say, that none of the models provided by conventional medicine are able to transcend the anthropological perspective i.e. they look at the psyche and its illnesses only from a “horizontal point of view”, considerably limiting the possibilities of analysis and therapy. In particular, questions that are most important for a person and which have existential meaning are therefore not answered or only inadequately answered. Existentialists, in particular, have pointed this out.
The part “Metapsychology” (similar to the other chapters) will first be discussed in general and then in more detail using concrete examples. At the end of this chapter, I will briefly address some metapsychological topics that are important for this publication. This will only be a selection of a variety of topics, since all topics relevant to the person and examined especially in philosophy, anthropology, psychiatry and psychology, are psychically relevant.
• The first section (general issues of psychical relevance) is subdivided into a horizontal and vertical structure. Horizontal arrangement: Differentiation of that which is psychically relevant by presenting analogies of fundamental language structures. Vertical arrangement: The psychical Relevant in its dimensions/ fundamental meanings.
• In the second section, important topics are discussed which are psychically relevant.
The psyche itself is the focus of attention in the next chapter ‘Psychology’.
The General Psychical Relevant
Introduction and Classification
In this chapter, that which is relevant to the psyche is investigated. 41. “Psyche” or “soul” is the personal form of the psychical Relevant (pR) .
2. A solitary “R” stands for Relative.
– The psychical Relevant = pR; or psychically relevant = pr.
Synonyms: psychic(al)/ psychological/ that which is significant to the soul/ psyche.
– Pseudoabsolute = strange Absolute (sA), The Absolute = A = +A or -A. The Relative = R.
Nearly all things are psychically relevant (pr). It is difficult to imagine an issue which might not be psychically relevant or which could not become so. The term ‘reality’ might come as close as possible to that which is psychically relevant. If reality were to be defined as that which affects us, then reality is not merely an objective but also a subjective matter.
It is about to differentiate the psychical Relevant (pR) and to arrange its meaning. More precisely, it is about an adequate classification of reality and world, person, psyche, and individual according to its importance for the human him/herself.
[Sometimes, I use in this work for world, person and individual/I the shortcut WPI.]
I divide the psychical Relevant (or the reality) in general after:
Concerning the differentiations I derive from the basic patterns of language both basic patterns of psychologically relevant forms and those of the psyche. I’m referring here to simple grammars of developed languages.
The differentiations represent the `horizontal classification´ of the psychical Relevant.
I use several stages of differentiation and would like to briefly introduce the first one:
The four “main aspects”: forms of being, life, properties and their connections are derived from the three main word classes: nouns, verbs, adjectives and fourthly from syntax.
These will be further differentiated in the course of the study.
The dimensions represent fundamental meanings of the psychical Relevant.
I distinguish the following fundamental meanings:
– the Absolute (A) = absolute dimension
– the Relative (R) = relative dimension
the Nothing(ness) (0). [For the special role of nothing, see later.]
I use these as keywords for similar fundamental meanings. (Later more)
The dimensions represent the `vertical classification´ of the psychical Relevant.
They show the meaning and position of a psychical Relevant or rather of a respective differentiation.
Taking differentiation and dimensioning together, the following picture emerges:
The psychical Relevant resp. the reality with its units is classified by differentiations and dimensions as by a horizontal and a vertical level. In the horizontal division, basic patterns of language differentiate the psychical Relevant in such as if one would lay a net with coordinates horizontally across that which is to be determined, to order it. This division is designated as horizontal since no evaluative assertion is to be made here as to a specific object’s importance and position. Rather, it is the vertical division, the ‘dimensions’, that provides information about this. (See `The absolute Perspective´ in part Metapsychotherapy).
Thus, this graph shows the classification of the psychical Relevant through language patterns in specific dimensions.
One can also say: The psychical Relevant is derived from what one can say about reality (persons, environment, etc.) and whether that has absolute or relative meaning or no meaning.
I distinguish the following 3 stages in the classification of the psychical Relevant
(dimensions and differentiations).
|1st stage of dimensions:
the Absolute (A), the Relative (R) and
the Nothingness (0).
|1st stage of differentiation:
4 main aspects: being, life, qualities, connections
|2nd stage of dimensions:
7 synonyms of the Absolute and Relative
|2nd stage of differentiation:
23 single aspects
|3rd stage of dimensions:
All terms listed in the overview table, concerning fundamental meanings or corresponding statements.
|3rd stage of differentiation:
All terms listed in the overview table, concerning differentiations or corresponding statements.
Note: For the sake of simplicity, I usually only use the 1st dimension stage (AR0) in this script for the dimensions.
Concerning the differentiations, I usually use the 1st or 2nd stage. (More on that later.)
General Differentiations (Analogy Language and the Psychical Relevant)
Language and the Psychical Relevant
“Language is yet more than blood.” Franz Rosenzweig
The differentiation of the psychical Relevant is based on the formation of analogies between patterns of language and patterns of that which is psychically relevant.
(This also includes the psyche → Grammar of the psyche.)
I repeat: the psychical Relevant can be classified horizontally or vertically. The horizontal division differentiates the psychical Relevant and the vertical division, with its dimensions, provides information about their fundamental meaning.
The differentiations resemble a grid, such as the one we use to zone the earth’s surface into longitudes and latitudes, so as to guarantee better orientation. In the analysis of that which is psychically Relevant, it is the language which offers these ‘longitudes and latitudes’ (‘horizontal division’), whereas the dimensions of the Absolute, Relative and Nothingness provide us with information about the ‘altitude’ (significance) of the subject-matter (‘vertical division’).
No other instrument gives us as much information as language about that which is psychically relevant. Language has not only individual but also general meanings and forms of expression. The psyche with its connections can only be determined indirectly. One can draw conclusions about the psyche and that which is important to it from the behavior of people, their dreams, from culture and art, from the history of mankind, or even from their language and many other sources – but especially from language.
[E.g. Victor Klemperer: “… language not only writes poetry and thinks for me, it also directs my feeling, it controls my entire soul being, the more self-evidently, the more unconsciously I surrender myself to it.” (LTI, p 24)]
The content of psychology should be everything that concerns people. That which concerns people, however, is primarily made orderly, understandable and communicable by language. Don’t we also learn most about the world and about ourselves as human beings through what we say? If we use language as the most important source to infer the soul life of our patients, then this also corresponds to the general practice that what our counterpart says, is in the foreground of the assessment of his person and situation.
The language is in this way, as I think, the most important medium of the people to express what concerns them. The language has also, in contrast to other sources, the advantage that it already has an outline and order which one can use to represent accordingly also contents and meanings of the psyche. Moreover, as a rule, all psychological findings from other sources need language to make their contents understandable and communicable.
For these reasons, isn’t language therefore best suited for drawing conclusions about our inner selves? I think so. Language thus appears as a first-rate metapsychological instrument/medium to structure psychic things and to make statements about their contents.
[The special importance of language for thinking and cognition of human beings was already emphasized by Nietzsche, Heidegger and Wittgenstein. Language as an “inescapable condition or matrix of thinking and cognition. Keyword: ‘linguistic turn’.]
Therefore, general, basic language components prove to be excellent analogies for the representation of general psychical relevant and psychical “basic elements”.
Regarding the differentiations of language and psyche, Lévi-Strauss and Lacan already had a similar thought when they postulated a `homology’ of language structures and (but only) the unconscious. 5E.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism, 4, 2017.
I would like to expand and clarify their hypothesis. I believe:
• Basic characteristics of the language in relation to its structure, dynamics, and quality statements are similarly found in the psychical Relevant and the psyche.
• Regarding the psyche -This also means that the psyche shows similar characteristics to language in terms of its structure, dynamics, and meaning contents.
It seems obvious that in the development of language, general language components and rules of grammar can be understood as reflecting what has been psychologically important to people for thousands of years.
That which is important to humankind has not only been defined by means of words but also by means of corresponding language patterns. By using language in this way, humankind not only denoted specific terms with specific phenomena but also reflected whose connections and functions as expressions of our psyches and their world experience. Therefore, general, basic language components, such as the parts of speech, prove to be excellent analogies for the representation of general psychical relevant and psychical “basic elements” – and the syntax, in turn, gives us in form of subject, object, predicate and their functions point to analogous psychic forms and their functions, and the semantics shows their meanings. Like language, I also see the psyche as a highly-differentiated system that has certain characteristics on the one hand, but on the other is very flexible and always alive. In analogy to the grammar of the language, one could speak of a Grammar of the psyche.
As said, I use in this paper simple grammars of developed languages which are essentially the same in their rules. But here I can only briefly deal with this topic.
• On the analogy of language structures and structures of the psyche, see there.→ Differentiations.
• On the analogies between meanings in language and the psychically relevant, see Dimensions.
First stage of Differentiation
A basic classification which can be found in almost all developed languages is one which differentiates between nouns, verbs and adjectives, as well as, syntactically, between subjects and predicates. The table below shows the resulting psychically relevant analogies.
Therefore, what is both psychically and linguistically relevant can be divided into the following four main components: Being, life, qualities and their connections. In this book, they will be utilized as psychically relevant correlates. Their interplay takes place on different stages with different dimensions, which are particularized in a subsequent chapter.
By analogy with language, this differentiation is expanded to include 23 aspects. This is the “second differentiation stage” of that which is psychically relevant, and of the psyche itself. At the end of all differentiations, one would find what all possible pr words represent in their infinite variety.
Thus far, the following analogies were made in the first stage of differentiation:
I. Nouns = being (= forms of being or pr units)
II. Verbs = life (= dynamics)
III. Adjectives = qualities
IV. Syntax = subjects, objects and their connections. Abbreviation: (BLQC)
In the first stage of differentiation, these four main aspects of that which is psychically relevant have been determined.
I believe they also reflect 4 important themes of humanity:
I. Being or not-being, II. Life or death, III. good or evil, IV. subject or object.
These in turn are embedded in the theme of the Absolute.
(See also: Fundamental Problems in Metapsychotherapy).
Second stage of Differentiation
If we further differentiate the four main aspects mentioned above, a different number of aspects will accrue, depending on the method employed and the stage of differentiation envisioned.
In my experience, further differentiation to the following 23 individual aspects is very helpful:
The single aspects of differentiation are differently dimensioned. In the 1st-5th unit in the above table, the aspects with absolute dimensionality are named first, whilst aspects with relative dimensionality are shown behind the slash. Further explications can be found in the unabridged German version.
The 3rd stage of differentiation is presented in the Summary table.
The method employed here to categorize that which is psychically relevant or psychological, by determining analogies from language, has the advantage that the single aspects can be expanded indefinitely so that every psychically relevant term can be integrated into the system.
As said, in this study, I predominately use the 1st and 2nd stages of differentiation.
An objection raised against this kind of differentiation argues that there are languages with basic structures that are entirely different. In fact, even for the most advanced languages, there are very different grammatical theories, that differ from the usual simple “school grammar” used here. Doubtlessly, this is a valid objection. However, I believe that, from a certain point, every kind of language and grammar can be used to express what is most important to a person. (Otherwise, adequate translation into many different languages could not be possible.) Therefore, the classification used here is merely one of many possibilities to infer that which is psychically relevant from general forms of language. I intentionally use simple grammar (“school grammar”), since it best reflects the every-day use of language.
Alongside language, that what is psychically relevant is reflected in many ways: It is obvious in our behavior, gestures, facial expressions, art and much more. Yet, none of these forms of expression is as differentiated and yet comprehensible, as is language.
“If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things.
If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.” (Confucius)
“The word, according to its nature, is the freest among the spiritual creatures but also the most endangered and dangerous.
Therefore, watchmen of the word are necessary.” Hrabanus Maurus 6Cit. by H. Cibulka: Tagebücher, Halle (Saale), 1976, p. 137. Emphasis by me.
Similar Ortega y Gasset: ” … it is by no means indifferent how we formulate things. The law of life perspective is not only subjective
but rooted in the nature of things … itself. … The mistake is to assume that it is up to our arbitrariness to assign things to their proper rank.”7[In: „Triumph des Augenblicks Glanz der Dauer“ DVA Stuttgart, 1983 S. 75ff. Translated by me.]
Explanation and Terms
In this work, the dimensions represent in the first stage of classification the hierarchy of the most fundamental meanings of what is psychically and psychologically relevant.
[In language, too, similar differences in meaning are made with absolute words and absolute statements on the one hand and relative words and relative statements.]
`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.
a) The Absolute is the most important, the most decisive, and the first-rate thing.
b) I use the term `meaning´ to denote the importance, rank and `sense of something.
c) What fundamental significance a single psychically relevant thing has is ultimately a matter of faith. As a rule, however, there is agreement on many points. For example, that money, status, externals, etc. have no absolute significance.
I mean that everything that is psychically relevant has one of these three meanings (rank): either something has absolute or relative or (almost) no meaning.
This is a classification that involves every psychically relevant aspect and also says the most important thing about it. In contrast, for example, the categories ‘right or wrong’, ‘pleasant or unpleasant’, ‘mature or immature’, ‘logical or illogical’ and the like would not capture every psychically relevant thing, nor its most important, fundamental meanings.
Similar terms to `fundamental meaning´ are: primordial, very first, basic, existential, essential ranks, determining, meanings, significances, -reference systems, -scale, -positions, -standpoints, -perspectives, -importances, -priority, -order of precedence.
In the following, I will mainly use the term `fundamental meanings´ or basic meanings as collective terms for the dimensions.
For inversions of these meanings, see the section Metapsychiatry.
As mentioned before, I distinguish in the first stage of classification between these dimensions of the psychical Relevant (pR):
• the Absolute (A)
• the Relative (R) 8Abbreviation: Relative = R.
I deliberately set the R in italics in order to distinguish this symbol from the abbreviation which denotes the (psychical) Relevant (R).
• the Nothing (0).
The nothing plays a special role, which I will come back to. It only exists as a Pseudo-nothing (no²), because there is no ‘real nothing’ (nothing1). (In my opinion, this would be a consequence of −A).
As said, I use these terms as guiding concepts for the later named `7 synonyms´ (2nd stage of dimensions). More on Nothingness later.
The dimensions represent the ‘vertical classification’ of that which is psychically relevant.
[`Vertical´ means: from the highest and most fundamental point of view.
See `The absolute Perspective´ in part Metapsychotherapy].
They attribute the respective fundamental meaning to the pr units and differentiations: an absolute or relative meaning.
Comparison of the most important `fundamental meanings´.
The absolute dimension is the decisive factor. The Absolute and the Relative have thoroughly different characteristics and effects. This fact is important when considering the theory of the genesis of mental disorders.
The Absolute (and the Nothingness) have a primarily “spiritual nature”, whereas the Relative is more material.
Absolute or relative adjectives prove helpful in representing the nature of the respective dimensions. They provide information on whether forms of being and forms of life, qualities and their relationships have absolute, relative or no significance. In this study, the relative dimension is marked by gradable adjectives, whilst absolute adjectives serve to identify the absolute dimension.
[An absolute adjective is an adjective with a meaning that is generally not capable of being intensified or compared. The gradable adjective means we can have different levels of that quality.]
Overall, I classify the dimensions according to the following categories:
• their `spheres´ (absolute, relative, null = 1st classification stage;
or to the corresponding 7 synonyms = 2nd classification stage),
• their ‘rank’ (first-rate, second-rate)
• their ‘orientation’ (pro/+, contra/‒, null)
• their place of occurrence (e.g., dimensions of the world, the person, the psyche, etc.)
(More on that later.)
In this way, each pr phenomenon can be classified according to the following categories:
absolute, relative or null (0); first-rate, second-rate; pro/+, contra/‒ or null, and by its place.
Motto: The ground of things is the unconditioned, the Absolute. 9This is based on the following quote from Novalis: “We seek the unconditioned everywhere and find only things.” (NS II: 412, Nr. 1).
What concerns us absolutely? What is the original reason, the original cause of everything? What determines us the most? What is of the greatest importance for us and absolutely necessary? Hunger and love? (F. Schiller). The drives and the unconscious? (S. Freud). The “chow”? (B. Brecht). 10B. Brecht in `Dreigroschenoper: ”Chow comesfirst; morality second.” Religion? (P. Tillich). Genes? Pleasure or reality? Ideologies? The laws of nature? The views differ. I call it the Absolute (A).
• first-rate, actual Absolute (A) 111. Beside these I postulate as a real Absolute – similar to Kierkegaard – an absolute attitude of the individual (see on this in chapter `Psychology´).
2. The terms ‘actual´, `real’ and ‘first-rate’ as well as the terms ‘strange’ and ‘second-rate’ and the abbreviations : sA or A² are used synonymously. For the sake of simplicity, A usually stand for A¹. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
• second-rate, strange Pseudo-Absolute (sA).
• subjective Absolute (this is often, but not always, a Pseudo-Absolute).
• objective Absolute (if it exists, which I assume, then it is always an actual Absolute).
All types can have positive or negative connotations. (The sA can also be ambivalent.)
That´s why I distinguish
• an actual, positive/ or negative Absolute (+A/ ‒A)
• strange, positive or negative (or ambivalent) Pseudo-Absolutes (+sA, ‒sA or ±sA).
(More in the section `Metapsychiatry‘.)
– I believe: The Absolute is the determining spirit of everything psychical Relevant (pR).
The Absolute is the decisive instance according to which everything in its sphere of influence is ultimately directed. It is primal reason and primal matter of everything. Therefore, everything is ultimately to be traced back to an Absolute. Since it is the foundation of our spiritual life, it is always with us. Our live rests upon it. We stand or fall with our Absolutes. We live or die through them.
But, it is (like the nothing) neither provable nor comparable, in the best case credible, but nevertheless of existential importance. Of course, what is most important to people, or even the Absolute, is very diverse. I believe that every person has their own Absolutes. Subjectively and individually, we have thousands of Absolutes: Gods that we love with all our heart, or devils and enemies that we fear and hate. Some people think safety is paramount, whilst others believe that health is the greatest good. A third group might say that the meaning of life is realized to be good people, whilst yet others are convinced that progress is of the highest significance. Others consider certain individuals to be the most important etc. In this way, every one of us has its own outlook on life and a frame of reference, in the center of which there is an Absolute. Mostly, an individual’s parents and the environment have a great influence on the development of this `framework´. Some of these worldviews are known by a certain name, as is the case regarding religions and ideologies but others are not. I have experienced that even individuals who are members of a particular church have a variety of private beliefs which often strongly contrasts with their relevant confession. Therefore, a formal profession of belief in God due to an individual’s affiliation with a Church might not be specifically meaningful. Besides their formal religion, they may also believe in money, power, progress, a political party, their father, mother, their wife or simply themselves – and is there someone of us who does not?12F. Nietzsche: „There are more idols than realities in the world …“ (Twilight of the Idols)
However, the most important may also be negative. It may seem most essential to a person not to be immoral, unfaithful, dependent, or not to become like another person. This negative goal then needs to be avoided at all costs, it is considered to be the worst possible outcome, an unacceptable condition, the unforgivable, mortal sin, or the like.
– In my view, all approaches to life, all worldviews, whether formalized or private, conscious or unconscious, have different Absolutes which are the basis of these worldviews and ideologies.
– Furthermore, the simple conclusion follows that these Absolutes determine also to which extent an individual is able to cope with their own person, with other people and the world around them. Therefore, these respective Absolutes are also crucial for the genesis and therapy of psychical illnesses.
– Considering the Absolute as the core of the psyche is not a new concept. The philosopher Karl Jaspers claimed that the kind of God a person believes determines his true being. (More precisely, one might say that the kind of God and the kind of devil a person accepts determines their true being.) S. Kierkegaard expressed similar thoughts. 131. Peter B. Rohde: Kierkegaard, Rowohlt 1998, p 37–42.
2. Before this time, Plato, Kant, Schelling, Hegel, and Fichte discussed the `Absolute’.
3. In materialism and similar systems, there is little scope for the Absolutes. (Schischkoff and The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy). Especially psychotherapists of the “Viennese School”
(W. Daim and I. Caruso) were convinced that misabsolutizations are decisive of the emergence of mental disorders. Unfortunately, their work is little known.
The Absolute (A) also determines the identity of a person.
(This concept can be summarized in the mottoes:
“I am like my A” or alternatively, “my A is my life”). In addition, the A is the ultimate creative sphere. Whatever a person places above themselves becomes an Absolute. Though the Absolute cannot be proven, it can be experienced and it is more or less apparent and plausible. It is not possible to prove the Absolute in general, nor is it feasible to prove the Absolute of a person (their Self). It is only possible to believe in it.
In principle, the Absolute is a metaphysical or spiritual category, which means that we can only describe it in words or portray it by using analogies or metaphors, etc. In this sense, it is unspeakable, elusive. It is a priori, a basic assumption. The Absolute is only defined by itself. It is self-explanatory. 14Thus, it appears reasonable that God should say of himself “I am who I am”.
Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology. Different rules and characteristics apply to the sphere of the Absolute than to the sphere of the Relative. (This statement will prove particularly relevant when examining the effects of inversions and the genesis of illnesses, as will be explained in the following chapters.) An investigation of the causes of mental disorders is ultimately (!) a quest for the Absolute. Similarly, the main and most important answers (therapy) are also found in the area of the Absolute.
The 7 Synonyms of the Absolute (2nd stage of differentiation)
The character of the Absolute (A) becomes more apparent when looking at the origin of the word:
It originates from the Latin word “absolutus” and denotes a matter or subject which is detached and independent.
In this study, I use the following 7 synonyms:
1. absolute 15 The term `absolute´ is the keyword.
4. whole, complete
6. primary, first-rate
Short Systematic Overview
Rank of the Absolute
After the rank I distinguish actual first- and strange second-rate Absolutes.16 [Hint: first-rate and actual, and second-rate and strange are synonyms! I use these different names depending on the topic.]
• To the first-rate Absolutes (A¹):
– the first-rate positive Absolute (+A¹)
– the first-rate negative Absolute (‒A¹)
– Especially: the personal “attitude toward the Absolute”, which I will discuss later. 17 For the sake of simplicity, I often identify the first-rate A instead of A¹ only with A.
For further details on the + A¹ and ‒A¹, see the chapter `Special metapsychological topics’
• To the second-rate, strange Absolutes (sA) = the Pseudoabsolutes
– positive/pro and negative/contra-sA (+sA and ‒sA)
– strange nothingness (s0 or only 0). 18I use the terms `positive’ and `pro’ as well as the terms `negative’ and `contra’ synonymously.
They play an essential part in the emergence of mental disorders and will be
discussed in greater detail in the later chapters.
Spheres of the Absolute
The first-rate actual Absolute (A¹) has the following parts:
The first-rate actual Absolute (A¹) left,
has the following parts:
A-center = the core-Absolute is only and exclusively-absolute.
A-external = the external Absolute is relative and also-absolute.
In the first-rate reality, the Relative is co-absolutized by the Absolute, so that this Relative is here `also- absolute.
Preview: Areas of a second-rate strange Absolute (sA) resp. Pseudo-Absolute.
The core and relative spheres of the sA are divided and distorted. More details can be found in this section of ‘Metapsychiatry’.
Representatives, Places of Occurrences
• Representatives of the 3 actual Absolutes
– Representatives of +A¹: God1/ love as the +A¹, 19 [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
Personal: the + `absolute attitude´ toward the Absolute´.
– Representatives of −A¹: `the absolute evil’ and its choice.
– Representatives of the `absolute attitude´: the absolute sphere of person.
• Representatives of strange Pseudo-Absolutes (sA)
+sA: general or individual +sA parts e.g.
ideal of itself = ‘Ideal-I’ or ‘Self-Ideal’,
ideal of others (e.g. ideal of other people, of the world as idol, ideologies, etc.)
‒sA: general or individual ‒sA-parts with absolutely negative connotations (e.g. taboos etc.)
0 : negated or repressed first-rate matters.
Overview and Preview of Important Terms and Abbreviations
A = the Absolute
sA = strange Pseudo-Absolute
sS = strange Self (= the personal sA)
∀ = strange All (in an all-or-nothing relations)
0 = Nothingness
It = complex of strange All and 0 (`dyad’) or of pro and contra and 0 part (`triad’) in the core.
C = general abbreviation for complexes that dominate personal and other areas of reality. 20The complexes range from the simplest complexes, the sA, sS, ” and 0, up to the Its, which consist of them and further to complexes, which consist of two or more Its, or as ‘hypercomplexes’ of very many Its.
(See also the section on complex formation in the part `Metapsychiatry’.)
Pro-sA and +sA on the one hand and contra-sA and ‒sA on the other hand will be viewed as equal throughout this book.
The terms will be explained in detail in the section ‘Metapsychiatry”.
The Meaning of the Relative 21Unless otherwise stated, this is about the first-rate Relative.
The Relative is created by the Absolute. The Relative is subordinate to the Absolute. It has a relative meaning in relation to it. Other than the Absolute, which only has one meaning and is first-rate, the Relative has a great variety of meanings. Relative would, strictly speaking, only be described in comparative terms. It could be compared to the interpretations of dreams or of symptoms, which are also not limited to one single specific meaning. So basically, you cannot think of the Relative as an independent. When we use the term “the Relative”, we should actually say “the Relative of the Absolute”. (Or something Relative of a Relative of an Absolute). Therefore, the Relative is not as independent as the term might have you expect. The word relative mainly describes a relation. The Relative cannot exist without the Absolute, in a similar way as there is no part without the whole – just as no illness exists in isolation from the affected person – or it is said, it would have a relatively independent existence. The Relative can be proved, the Absolute may only be believed. 22One might formulate more precisely: the Relative is ultimately only relatively good to prove, whereas the Absolute is absolutely believable. But the (actual) Absolute is more credible than a Relative one.
The Relative is best defined from the Absolute.
The first-rate relative sphere forms a continuum with its components but our language divides this continuum into separate entities. This also applies to the classification of diseases, which are also something Relative.
Contrary to the Absolute, the Relatives can only be in a relative opposition. I.e., two Relatives can only be set in relative opposition to each other. Therefore, there is no dualism or absolute opposition of body and soul, health and illness, subject and object and so on in the first-rate reality.
Absolute opposite and separation only exist between the positive and negative Absolute +A and ‒A. (More on this later).
The Relatives as strange Pseudo-Absolutes (sA) however, can be of absolute relevance to the individual. Then they are not only ambiguous but often appear to be contradicting and paradoxical.
The qualities of Relatives are not absolutely distinct, which means that something that usually has a negative meaning, can appear positive (and vice versa) – i.e. everything Relative has one relative positive (+) and one relative negative (‒) side, or several of these sides. There is no Relative that is solely positive or negative. Then it would not be relative but absolute. The sayings: “Everything (Relative) has two sides” and “Everything has its advantages and disadvantages” are well-known. This fact is also important when it comes to mental disorders, which are also Relatives. It relativizes the statement that illness and its causes are solely negative and health and its causes are only positive. Only God1, more or less also the first-rate Self, spirit, and life can be seen as actual Absolutes. The terms “person”, “personality” and “self” can be used best to show the Absolute part of a person. Also, terms such as sense, truth, fairness, dignity, freedom, and love are indicators for the actual Absolute.
Terms such matter, body, thing, object, the worldly or functions are important representations of the Relative. 23[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
7 Synonyms of the Relative (2nd stage of differentiation)
Just as I named 7 synonyms of the Absolute in the 2nd stage of differentiation, I also name 7 synonyms of the first-rate Relative:
The Relative (compared to the Absolute) is:
- relative 24The term `relative´ is the keyword.
- dependent 25Relative properties should always be presented in the comparative form, however, for the sake of simplicity, I will portray them in their base form in this study. More on later.
Preview: For comparison, the most important characteristics of second-rate Relatives (R²).
(See also in the Summary table columns I and L, lines 1-7. Character of the sA ibid. Column K, lines 1-7).
For their identification I mostly use the left, first mentioned forms here.
1. inadequate/ hyperabsolutized/ unrelated
2. strange/ hyperidentical/ without identity
3. unreal/ hyperreal/ essenceless
4. split/ one-sided/ detached
5. accidental / determined/ undetermined
6. second-rate/ extreme/ unconnected
7. too heteronomous/ pseudoautonomous/ detached.
More on that later.
Assignment of certain absolute and relative aspects.26(More about ‘The Absolute and Relative in comparison’ – in the unabridged German version.)
Symbols which Show the Relations between A and R
These pictures show the priority of A compared to R (from left to right):
The Absolute is the center/ the superordinate/ the basis/ the primary/ and the comprehensive.
According to it, the Relative is the peripheral/ the subordinate/ the superstructure/ the secondary and the limited.
The Nothingness is outside of AR.
The Nothingness (0)
I believe that the actual nothingness is a result of the actual negative Absolute.
The strange nothingness may be seen as a result of a strange Pseodo-Absolute (sA) and as a category of second-rate realities. E.g. Something became worthless, meaningless, nothing, null, void, negated, etc. (See also the `Genesis of the nothingness´).
General Units/ Systems
I distinguish the following pr systems/units that will be described more specifically later on:
(I denote the more absolute before the Relative).
- Everything, All – Something
- God – World
- People – Things
- I – Others
- Spirit – Body, Mind.
If you look at the dimensions, there is an absolute and a relative area in every system/ unit.
If it is a first-rate pr system, there is only one actual Absolute.
Is it a strange, second-rate pr system however, there will be at least two if not multiple strange Pseudo-Absolutes.
Shortcut: system, unit = Σ
(The terms unit and system are used synonymously here for the sake of simplicity.)
World, Person and I
“That I recognize what the world holds together in the innermost.” Goethe, Faust.
The world, the person and the I (= WPI) are made of one first-rate reality and a lot of second-rate realities. Whether our world is „the best of all possible worlds“, as Leibniz said, or whether one is, as Schopenhauer (and Buddha) said, stricken by “the sorrow of life“, or the person is considered good or bad – philosophers have very different opinions about that. I think everything from ‒A to +A is represented, although most of them are probably somewhere in between. I.e., people live in a world between heaven and hell – sometimes belonging more to one side than the other. This is a world that will always be in need of redemption, just as we are.
A commonality of all realities/ systems (Σ) is that they are determined by different Absolutes (actual A or Pseudo-sA).
For more details on the following topics see the unabridged German version:
Basic relations in pr realities / systems.
Relations between spirit, psyche and matter.
Interplay of general language forms and differentiations.
Relations between various pr units.
Human between +A / ‒A and R.
In the chapter ‘Metapsychology’, you will find the introduction of the classification of any kind of psychical relevant topics.
The classification has a vertical and a horizontal axis.
The vertical axis indicates fundamental meanings (key concepts: absolute, relative and nothing).
The differentiations make up the horizontal axis. These are deduced from fundamental forms of language.
All psychical relevant realities have specific dimensions and differentiations, where the absolute dimension determines the specific reality. It is divided into first-rate and second-rate, strange dimensions and thus, into a first-rate and second-rate realities.
The first-rate and second-rate realities have very different properties. Thereby, the second-rate strange realities (especially the second-rate psychical ones) are the most important basis for the development of psychical disorders.
One can say:
1. In general (after the `first classification stage´): Metapsychology, or what is psychically relevant, has to do with existential, fundamental meanings whose main representatives are the Absolute, the Relative and the nothingness, and with what nouns, verbs and adjectives represent – i.e. with “structures” (forms), “movements” and “qualities”. And psychically relevant connections have something to do with what subjects, objects and predicates represent (1st classification stage).
2. The `2nd classification stage´ corresponds to the first vertical column of the Summary table.
In keywords: Metapsychology or the psychical Relevant (as well as the psyche) has to do with: actual or strange Absolute, Relative or Nothing, with sense, identity, truth, unity (wholeness), unconditionality (security), causes, independence (a1-a7); Further with: All and nothing, God and the world, I and other people, spirit, mind and body, gender, conditions, aspirations, ownership, necessities, obligations, rights, new and old, actions, information, portrayals, meanings, mistakes, past, present and future, with qualities and with all `movements’, i.e. actions and processes that are connected to them – all that can have actual or strange absolute, relative or no importance.
3. To the `3rd classification stage´, one could allot all pr terms of the Summary table.
4. Infinitely differentiated, one could say: Metapsychology and also the psyche have to do ultimately with every word and sentence.
For me, it was most useful to use the usual grammar as a basis for analogies in order to differentiate psychically relevant things. Thus the used classification appears, like the language itself, as an open but ordered system, which can be extended or changed if necessary.
It seems to me that this categorization, therefore, offers considerably more possibilities than the usual classifications in psychology and psychiatry to represent something psychically relevant in general or the psyche in particular.
The attention to the existential basic meanings of the psychologically relevant (“dimensions”) and the presentation of their confusions is, in turn, beneficial for understanding the genesis of mental illness. (⭢ Metapsychiatry)
Summary of the Dimensions and Differentiations and their Classification
Individual Metapsychological Topics
Here, I focus on the topics of the `2nd classification stage´. I will try, in particular, to find answers to the following questions:
Which are the most important psychical relevant (pr) topics? What is reality, truth, freedom, the Self, the I and so on?
Is there only one reality, just one truth, one freedom, one Self, etc.? Or are there a lot of them: a lot of realities, a lot of truths, a lot of freedoms, many Egos and Selves? And if so, what are they?
In this chapter, I distinguish with regard to every specific, psychical relevant topic between absolute and relative forms and between first-rate (= actual) and second-rate (= strange).
• The first-rate forms consist of only one +Absolute, which comprises many relative forms.
• The second-rate forms consist of many strange absolute and strange relative forms. Here, the strange absolute forms are separated into two opposites and one zero part.
(Why this is so, I explain later.)
So I distinguish between
– one first-rate Absolute (+A), which forms with its Relatives (R¹) a manifold unity: one first-rate reality/ world (W¹)
– and on the other hand many second-rate, strange Pseudo-Absolutes (sA) with many second-rate, strange Relatives (R²) which create diverse second-rate realities/ worlds (W²).|
These statements are basically statements of belief, although a lot of the specific literature gives the impression that this is not the case..
Phrases like “there is no absolute truth!” can be found often. However, these authors should say: “I believe, that there is no absolute truth!”
Regarding the Dimensions
In the following section, the 7 aspects of the dimensions are sequentially ordered (`2nd stage of dimensions). The division is the same as in the Summary table.
What applies to first-rate Absolute and the second-rate Pseudo-Absolutes (sA), also applies to first-rate or second-rate identity (a2), first-rate or second-rate actuality, truth (a3), first-rate or second-rate unity (a4), first-rate or second-rate unconditionality/ safety (a5), first-rate or second-rate causes (a6) and first-rate or second-rate autonomy and freedom (a7). At each first-rate aspect, I mention a `Meta’-term. So I want to make it clear that this first-rate meta-stage is the highest, includes everything Relative and is stronger than any sA, which have only relative importance from this perspective.
The Absolute and the Relative were discussed above in chapter `Dimensions‘ (1st stage).
In relation to the (main?) function of theAbsolute (from Latin absolutum, “the solved”) one can say:
• There is one first-rate absolute solution (= salvation and redemption) and many first-rate relative solutions.
• In contrast, there are many second-rate solutions: second-rate (pseudo-) absolute, when a relative solution has been absolutized, or second-rate relative, when other solutions have been derived from a pseudo-absolute solution. (For details, see section `Solutions´)
Identity, Self (a2)
Identity can be understood as the ‘inner unity of a person’ or as ‘essential likeness’.
I distinguish first-rate, actual identity and second-rate, strange identities:
• The first-rate, actual identity encloses all possible relative identities, no matter if they are positive or negative. It is based on a positive Absolute.
I think that the identities we give ourselves, such as ‘a good person’, our profession or our status, are not the absolute identity but more relative/ attributive identities. I believe the highest identity is the identity that God1/ love gives to us, (theomorphism), which also continues to even if we are not at ease with our own idea of our identity. 27Hint: I partly write God1to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.
It represents itself personally as the positive Self. It also integrates our second-rate, strange identities. That means, that I can always feel identical to myself, even if I am strange to myself or can’t see who I actually think I am. Even from that perspective, entirely alienated, I receive a fundamental, indestructible identity.
One can identify this identity also as `meta-identity´ because it stands above and integrates all other relative or strange identities.
• In contrast to that, there is a lot of second-rate (pseudo-)absolute identities. They consist of one hyper-identical and one contrary, strange and one zero part. They are fixed on specific identities and exclude other, mostly negative ones. In this case, the affected person has either the sense of a strange or even unacceptable identity, of a hyper-identity, or no identity at all.
Example: If my status as psychotherapist establishes my absolute identity, then I would feel as if my entire identity is lost when losing this status. Also, relativistic over-identifications may lead to a strange or non-existent identity, although many authors see it differently,
e.g.: “The structure of the complete Identity is a reflection of the whole social process”. 28de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolischer Interaktionismus
The definitions by the Self of Kernberg and others goes into the same direction.
It appears good, to define the above named attributes (nationality, profession …) as something that is part of one’s actual Self. More powerful, however, is the first-order core identity, which is found deep inside a person and leads me to always be myself. But whenever relative identities become absolute, the person is confronted with a lot of different, sometimes paradoxical identities, that cannot be integrated anymore. Isn’t that one of the main problems of our clients, that the free and unshakable identity is being limited and bound to severe requirements, so that we can only feel comfortable and identical with ourselves if these internalized requirements are met? Isn’t it obvious, how vulnerable, questionable, delicate and potentially pathogenic such an image of man is? But we need an indestructible identity.
(See also `Disorder of the person’s identity´ and `a2 Identity and otherness´).
“The higher a truth is, the higher you have to look to understand it.” (Antoine de Saint-Exupéry)
I am convinced, that there are several “truths”.
I distinguish between first-rate, actual truth and “second-rate, strange truths”.
• The first-rate, actual truth includes all relative truths. It is based on a positive Absolute.
The first-rate, actual truth is an entity with a variety of relative sections of truth. I also count logic and rightness as part of this. More specifically: Every relatively true statement is connected to a relatively opposing statement, which is also relatively true. Both “truths” are neither absolutely true nor absolutely untrue. 291. An example: Although the statement is generally (mainly) correct that one should not hurt other people but the opposite can be also correct in individual cases (for example, surgery). I use here the terms correct and true, respectively, false and untrue synonymously.
2. Therefore, the often endless discussions about who is right are mostly senseless because usually neither side is absolutely wrong.
Sometimes, a relative untruth can be truer than a relative truth. E.g.: Although the statement is generally right that one should not hurt other people, the opposite may be more right in individual cases (e.g., surgery).
Those relative truths only stay true if they are embedded in the first-rate actual truth. The first-rate truth does not only include objective truths but also subjective truths. One could identify it as ‘meta-truth’.
Also: objectivity will be the most truthful if it does not attempt to be solely objective but also includes subjectivity. And subjectivity will be the strongest and truest if it involves objectivity.
The first-rate truth is stronger than the second-rate, strange truths, and can compensate those.
• In the case of “second-rate, strange truths”, a relative truth is turned into an absolute truth, and a relative opposite becomes an absolute opposite. Then, there is only absolutely true or absolutely untrue, right or wrong, black or white etc.
What someone has absolutized will also determine what he thinks is true and right. So a capitalist will believe true and right is that what increases his capital, or a moralist, what serves morality, etc.Also: If a (relative) truth will exaggerate, a relative untruth arises.Similar to the realities, the various truths also depend on the Absolute. They are subordinated to an Absolute and this Absolute determines if they are first-rate or second-rate. Those statements go hand in hand with the conceptions of the modern logic. For example: “The correctness or falsehood of a system can only be determined from outside of the system” = Gödel’s incompleteness theorems. 30Logik Wörterbuch p. 189
Truth and Rightness
Truth is stronger than rightness because the latter is often “short lived”. (P. Bamm)
Here are just a few keywords: We need to differentiate between truth and `rightness’. Truth is an important topic in philosophy, rightness/ correctness in sciences. The truth one can believe, the rightness one can prove. Truth first and foremost captures the essence, rightness the thing in itself. Similar statements: truth is a semantic category, rightnessa syntactic category.
Truth is believable, the rightness is provable but the credible is stronger than the provable. “The dignity of man is inviolable” and similar statements are truths to me. But one cannot prove that they are right.
Although the truth is often defined as accordance between reality and intellect (“Veritas est adaequatio rei et intellectus”), I see no accordance because reality is only partially logically comprehensible.
The rightness should be embedded in truth and the search for truth should not be independent of the search for that which is correct. To me, rightness appears as a kind of relative truth.
I distinguish between first-rate, actual unity and second-rate, strange “units”.
• The first-rate, actual unity may be absolute or relative.
There is only one first-rate unity, in which all relative units are embedded.
Personally, I believe that the unity of a person with God1 is an absolute unity. This unity contains all the (positive and negative) Relatives, also splittings and dissociations. From that standpoint, nothing can separate us from God1 and there cannot be any kind of dissociation within us because we are always protected and secure in that unity. Therefore, I believe that this is the strongest force against any psycho-pathological division and dissociation because every society and every individual tends to split off the negative, and our human power is often not strong enough to overcome these splittings.
This first-rate, actual unity is a kind of `meta-unit´
• In contrast, there are many second-rate, strange “units” that are determined by strange Pseudo-Absolutes (resp. ‘It’). These It and their units are self-contradictory (→ The It as a nine-sided triad), have a contradictory dynamic (see, e.g. `Disorder of the person’s identity´) and are found in all mental illnesses (e.g., schizophrenia).
I distinguish between first-rate, actual safety and second-rate, strange safeties.
• The first-rate, actual safety may be absolute or relative. There is only one first-rate absolute +A based safety with a large number of first-rate, relative forms of safety. One can speak of a `meta-safety´ because it is higher than all relative safeties or uncertainties and compensates these. That means, that in spite of uncertainties, a person might still feel safe at a “higher level”.
• In contrast to that, there are many second-rate, pseudo-absolute and strange relative safeties.
The pseudo-absolute safeties have one “over- secure” variant, one opposite too insecure and one zero variant.
Example: Something can cause a person to feel absolutely safe: such as being absolutely sure, to reach a certain goal. However, if this safety is questioned lost, the safety may become a big uncertainty. Anything in-between is missing. Also, there is no awareness of other safeties (zero variant).
Causes and Results (a6)
I distinguish between:
a) first-rate, actual causes, which can be first-rate and absolute (“primary cause”), or hereinafter relative (“first-rate relative causes” from R¹).
b) second-rate, strange causes (“strange causes”), which emerge first from strange Pseudo-Absolutes (sA), or hereinafter from their Relatives (R²).
To be more exact:
• To a)
One may think of one first-rate, actual cause with a large number of relative causes from R¹.
Personally, I see the first “primary cause” in God1.
[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
A second, “primary cause”, corresponds to the basic attitude of a person, which can be the foundation of multiple other causes. For our topic, it is important, that people do not only see themselves as victims of a complex interplay of conditions and requirements but also as a person who can primarily and independently bring new positive to a system.
• To b)
Second-rate, strange causes emerge if relative causes are given pseudo-absolute importance. These are causes for certain behaviors, perceptions, etc., that often not correspond to the actual fundamental attitude of a person. They are products from It/sA or their systems. Those have two opposite parts and one zero part. That means, that the second-rate causes, such as a heteronomous desire, are divided into a pro-part (“I want this”), into its opposite (“I want the opposite”) and into a zero part (“I want nothing”).
The It/sA are typical second-rate causes. 31Remined: sA = strange Absolute, It = sA, Contra-sA and 0sA as three-part “unit”. Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology. They create second-rate worlds/realities, second-rate personal and individual changes (WPI²). Those may become further second-rate causes, especially of illness. The It/sA as second-rate causes have very special characteristics and effects, which will be listed in detail later on (s.`General effects of the Its´). It is worth mentioning that they mainly have indirect and ambivalent effects. They also extend far beyond the original range of action (s. Spreading and compression). They are the cause for vicious cycles. 32Since vicious cycles occur in the relative range, they are best resolved from an + absolute range. (See later)
Six Hypotheses on Cause of Changes of the Psychical Relevant (pR)
1st hypothesis: The primary causes of a pr occurrence come from the absolute sphere of a subject.
That “subject” may be a person or +A or ‒A (see later). Put otherwise: The above-named subjects are able to bring something totally new into pr systems. The Person is not the only cause of any changes. So, as said before, the person is not just a product of some relationships but may add something new to his own healing process.
2nd hypothesis: In a pr system, any pr cause may have any relative result. That also means, that, put the other way around: Any relative result – negative or positive – (such as health or sickness) may come from every kind of cause. But with very different probability! (Exceptions s. below.) That also means, that any psychical symptom of illness, may have a large number of different causes, even if the probabilities are very different.
E. Bleuler said something similar to that: “It took very long until one realized that a psychopathological disorder can be caused by very different noxas and that one noxa may lead to different disorders.” 33Bleuler E. Lehrbuch der Psychiatrie. Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1983, p. 132.
That also means there is no absolute clear interpretation of symptoms, dreams and other kinds of pr phenomena but interpretations may only have high or low validity. (In that context, it is good to mention that opposite interpretations of second-rate realities are more likely than one would assume.)
When it comes to therapy, that means that: There is a great variety of therapeutic possibilities, even if the quality is very different.
3rd hypothesis: Is about an exclusion of the 2nd hypothesis: An absolutely positive cause has no absolutely negative result, and the other way around: An absolutely negative cause has no absolutely positive result.
Expressed in religious terms: There is nothing absolutely negative coming from God1 but something relatively negative sometimes (something that feels negative, such as sorrow and illness). Also, there is nothing absolutely positive that can come from ‒A but something relatively positive. God1 focuses on the +A, whereas the goal of ‒A is the absolutely negative.
4th hypothesis: Results of causes may become causes for other results. These can occur as circular or systemic causes, or as web or bundle of causes.
5th hypothesis: First-rate causes originate from the spiritual sphere.
Although the primacy of a spiritual (or ideational) causation cannot be proved, nor the primacy of material causation, there is presently the danger of one-sidedly searching for causes of mental illness in the material-somatic sphere and, accordingly, of treating them unilaterally (KW Psychotropic drugs).
[Since it is known that traumatization can cause brain and gene changes that are hereditary, one must also relativize some notions of heredity. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma.]
6th hypothesis: If the principles (axioms, apriori) are wrong, then their derivatives too.
(Further see `Causes of mental disorders´).
Autonomy and Freedom (a7)
We, as humans, are only total independent when it comes to our absolute ability of choice. Otherwise, we are more or less dependent. I believe that only God1 is absolutely free in all matters. We are free only in relation to the Absolute. 34What I denote the `choice of the Absolute´ or `primary virtues´.
S. Kierkegaard said something similar. Therefore, I believe that the goal of absolute autonomy and independence, that a lot of people and therapists have, is unreal and overexerts us.
I distinguish between first-rate, actual freedom and second-rate “freedoms”.
• The first-rate, actual freedom may be absolute or relative. There is only one first-rate, absolute freedom with a lot of first-rate, relative forms of freedom.
• In contrast to that, there are a large number of second-rate (pseudo-)absolute and relative² “freedoms”. Those are split into one too free, ‘libertarian’, one strange and one unfree part.
Freedom is first-rate if it is connected with responsibility and embedded in +A (in love, in God1). Whenever freedom is isolated from responsibility and love and still put as absolute, it becomes a second-rate, strange Absolute.
First-rate quasi celestial freedom also exists, when I can say that I am free, even though I am actually not. Put in other words: I also have the freedom of being dependent/ not free.
The first-rate freedom is stronger than the second-rate freedoms/ unfreedoms.
An important sign of second-rate freedoms is the limitation of choice.
Regarding the Differentiations
The 4 main Differentiations
Forms of Being
In this section, I want to contrast forms of being that represent Relatives (matter, etc.) to those which are close to the more absolute (spirit, soul, etc.).
I assume that in the first-order reality there are fluid transitions between these entities, without the respective entities losing their own characteristic features. Limitations and divisions only occur in the second-rate realities on account of the strange Pseudo-Absolutes (sA). That´s why I believe that the human person is only unity in its first-rate reality. But since we also live in a large number of second-rate realities and also exist as such ones, we, like our environment, are more or less torn.
That also means that there are usually splittings, contrasts, disassociations (and other sA-results) between spirit and body or within the psyche or the spirit. Put in other words: There is a great variety of forms of being in the first-rate reality which together form a single entity. In the second-rate realities, however, there are a large number of forms of being, which are partly strange or opposite to each other. Therefore, they might become incompatible and the cause of illness.
They are, however, relativized and integrated by the +A. In other words: No matter how torn and broken a person feels, he can still feel as unity and secured on a higher level.
Matter and spirit: Which one is the dominant one? I assume that the spirit is dominant in relation to the matter, i.e., the first-rate spirit determines the matter and not the other way around. As mentioned, spirit and matter are not necessarily opposites, since the matter may be a possible expression or result of the spirit. Surely, the matter can also determine the spirit but only the relative sphere of the spirit, not the absolute spirit. But matter can dominate a person as a strange Pseudo-Absolute. The actual absolute spirit, however, remains free and can be chosen at liberty.
I think of a similar hierarchy when it comes to humans. The hierarchy would be: spirit > psyche > body.
In the best case, there would be no kind of contradiction between those “parts”.
The latest findings of natural science raise doubts about the primacy of the spirit in relation to the matter. But it will probably depend on a person’s belief, what is seen as the primacy. I have little doubt as to the fact that the spirit has the most power (positive and negative).
The following questions are of great relevance when it comes to practical aspects and everyday life:
Is the body more important than the spirit or vice versa? Is the matter more important than the spirit or vice versa? Is the soul more important than the body or vice versa? Is the outside more important than the inside or vice versa? What are the top priorities of therapy and analysis of mental disorders? Are the priorities mostly found in the spirit or in the somatic area?
Can one not be happy, although one’s body is “broken”, whereas it seems to be impossible to be happy when one has a broken soul but a body that is perfectly in shape?
Doesn’t the spirit eventually determine the personality and not the genes? Fanatic ideologies that took millions of lives; children of Nazis, such as the son of Nazi Borman and others, who lived in an absolutely different way than their parents, are important examples of the power of negative and positive mindsets, that cannot be explained with the genes alone. 35In this work, ‘ideology’ is the guiding concept for all inversive attitudes, including the individual ones.
But: Every ideology has positive sides too. It is all the better, the more it resembles the positive Absolute (+A) which is discussed later, and the worse and more morbid, the more opposing it is to +A.
(See also later on Connections of body, soul and spirit).
Life is a characteristic of the first-rate reality/ world (W¹). In W¹, the functioning is subordinated to life.
The first-rate reality lives essentially (in the core) on its own accord.
In the second-rate realities, the functioning dominates the life of the individual. If we have the feeling that we are only functioning and not living, then we are in a second-rate, strange reality.
The question of good and bad or of right or wrong is one of the most central questions of our soul life. It is not without reason that we have lost Paradise after eating from the tree of the knowledge of good and bad / of right and wrong. [n the following I sometimes only use the terms `positive´ and` negative´.]
What is objectively good or bad or right or wrong is ultimately a matter of belief.
In general, there should be a consensus that what is good/ right promotes people and that evil/ wrong harms people. Subjectively good and right or bad and wrong is how the person feels it or what he thinks it is. The subjective and objective assessment can agree, but often does not agree. We consider some things to be negative even though they are positive (→ Resistance). And conversely, we consider some things to be positive, even though they are objectively negative and harm us. We can sometimes hate the same person too much and love too much (including ourselves), even if the “object” has not changed in principle. These and many other ambivalences or paradoxes are ubiquitous.
What one thinks is positive or negative does not only play a role in general with regard to the question of ‘war or peace’, but is also relevant as ‘inner war’ for the development of mental disorders. Because what is considered to be evil, diabolical, hostile, etc., is usually hated and fought against. You cannot identify with it, integrate it. That which is the positive, beloved, divine etc. for one, without being it, is usually too much loved, promoted and one over-identifies with it.
What we take to be absolutely positive (+sA) or absolutely negative (−sA) forms the corresponding opposite: Whoever has idols (+sA) with which he identifies and is addicted, also has corresponding devils, enemies (−sA) who threaten him.
If we continue with the above-mentioned classification, we could say:
• There is the one, first-rate absolute good / positive (see +A below) and a large number of first-rate relative good/ positives. And there are many second-rate “good” / positives.
• There is the one, first-rate absolute evil/ negative (‒A) and many first-rate, relative “evils” / negatives. And there are many second-rate “evils” and negatives.
• The good is not necessarily associated with well-being.
• The +A integrates everything relative negative or absolutized.
• After eating from the tree of the knowledge of good/ right and bad/ wrong, we are now “cursed” to do the good/ right and to avoid the bad/ wrong.
• The first-rate qualities are unsplit and represent a multifaceted unity.
The second-rate qualities are split into two opposite parts (all or nothing) or three (pro, contra or 0 part).
A positive pro-part (= positive hyper-quality) causes over-strong positive emotions, which are usually felt more strongly than the emotions caused by the actual +A. (→ Addiction, Seduction). And negative hyperqualities produce over-strong opposite emotions.(→ Defense).
See also: The Emergence of the It, The Opposites and their Dynamics).
Terms that express absolutely positive are: God, love, Holy Spirit, absolute good, etc.
I distinguish the following first-rate positive Absolutes:
1. “God” – as quasi unconditional, comprehensive, positive absolute personal – as far as a “definition” is possible here at all. 36[Hints: – Because these are my conceptions of God and there are many other or no conceptions besides, I partly write God1 in part to indicate that these are my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.
– God1is of course more than the +A. He includes as +AR also the Relative. +A alone without the relative is absolutistic.]
2. The `absolute attitude of a person´ towards the +A.
(For more information, see section: “The absolute attitude“).
Both of these together express a loving relationship that includes the possibility of free choice. (Such as it is in human relationships.)
This +A (God1, love, and the Self) cannot be proven. If it was provable, it wouldn’t be absolute. No proof is necessary. They are self-explanatory and self-evident. “I love you!” and not “I love you, because…”. That means that love is basically absolute. It is causeless, unprovable, not disputable. It cannot be ‘produced’, but wanted and given. It appears by itself. So it is basically very simple but does not mean that you should not put effort into keeping the love. Love, at its core, is something spiritual. (It is also something spiritual and physical – but first and first-rate spiritual.) Love represents something godly and heavenly.
I believe, man was made for love and freedom (God1), that is also: the man has the freedom to reject God and love.
Also the universal human rights are not provable but obvious such as love, the Self or God1 and therefore it can only be believed.
I think, the Ten Commandments, morality, good deeds, etc., are, compared to God, only of relative, albeit first-class, positive relevance, as are all the positive aspects of worldly life in general. Those and other first-rate +Relatives such as +realities, truths, freedoms and so on, create only a unity with the +A.
As positive Relatives, you could also say: they are also-love, also-in-God1.
Important: +A integrates anything Relative and also the strange Pseudo-Absolute (sA).
(See also `Absolute and relative will´ and `Right and wrong´.)
Terms like: Mortal enemy, absolute evil, devil, demon, etc. would most likely denote the negative Absolute.
The negative Absolute (‒A), also seems basically to be an actual Absolute. 37Although I consider the ‒A to be very important for the development of diseases, I have limited myself mainly to the pathogenic effects of sA in this work, since these are alterable and the former (‒A) is not.
However, it is ‘weaker’ than the positive Absolute. Therefore, one could call it, in comparison to God, the ‘weaker actual Absolute’.
One could make the following distinctions:
1. An outer- or supra-personal negative Absolute (which was formerly called the devil).
2. A personal negative Absolute.
About 2: I believe that the personal negative Absolute is a fundamental, unrevoked, destructive attitude of an individual in favor of the absolute evil. I also believe that it is justifiably unforgivable because such an individual does not want forgiveness. In the bible that is called mortal sin. (→ “The absolute attitude“).
Unfortunately, a large number of people, theologians included, view some other negative behavior or attitudes as unforgivable, as a mortal sin.
So: No fear of mortal sins, which are not mortal sins.
For details, see also `Right or wrong – To the guilt question´.
On the topics: Is there evil at all? And to dualism. See the unabridged German version.
Note: Although I consider the ‒A to be very important for the development of diseases, I have limited myself mainly to the pathogenic effects of sA in this work, since these are alterable and the former ‒A is not.
Does evil exist at all?
Some people believe that evil does not exist. That man is good in himself.
But: Could you pull a plastic bag over the head of a human being, an innocent one at that, tie it at the neck and enjoy how the human being suffocates agonizingly in front of you? Some people can do that! Could you grab a small child, who has done nothing to you, by the feet and bang its head against the wall until it is dead and listen with good feeling how it screams for its life and watch how its skull cracks open … ? Some can do that!
The list of these cruelties is long and don’t tell me that there is no primary evil in the face of these and many other brutalities on this earth. However, I do not mean that all atrocities represent “absolute evil” and are unforgivable. Much is the result of negative environmental influences. And I also do not imagine to be able to distinguish the one from the other and to rise up to the judge. However, I have no doubt about the fact of a primary evil.
Nowadays, besides the false deadly sins on the one hand, the loss of evil in people’s thinking on the other hand is to be deplored, because the loss of this negative absolute causes other, relative negative things to take its place.| Moreover, and this is perhaps even more serious, if I assume the non-existence of a primary evil, I have to show understanding to all perpetrators who do evil to me and, if necessary, pity them even more than their victims. Such a view, to which there are strong tendencies today, carries the danger that then the perpetrator is helped more than the victim and thus the facts are perverted. (Other keywords: “all reconciliation”, wrong localization of evil, everything must be understood and treated, etc.).
Subjects, Objects and Subject-Object-Problem
About the Subject
I am dealing here above all with the person (P) as a subject. 38God1 is for me a `first-rate personal subject’ also. Hint: As said, I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.
• We can distinguish between two parts of the first-rate person (P¹) as the subject:
– P¹ as an absolute subject = the absolute
te I-self, with an absolutely free choice of the A and with absolute attributes such as uniqueness and singularity.
– P¹ as a relative subject.
A first-rate subject (P¹, God1) compensates or integrates all relative and absolutized objects without becoming identically with them.
• As a second-rate subject, P² is a surrogate-subject because it is determined by an It/Pseudo-A and acts as such. Therefore, I also call it “Sobject” because it is half subject and half object in its core.
Mentally ill people often see themselves as an object because they are determined by a strange subject (It/Pseudo-A) as a sign of second-rate personality (P²). Also S. Freud, like most secular psychotherapists, only saw humans in their second-rate dimension – that is, only as a secondary subject (“sobject”), which itself is only an object of strange Pseudo-Absolutes or super-ordinate instances (especially Id and Superego) is.
About the Object
As first-rate object, the object can probably not be first-rate absolute but only first-rate relative.
As second-rate object, it will be controlled by an It/sA , or it is absolutized itself.
– In the second-rate P² there is either a subject-object-split, a subject-object-fusion or a subject-object-negation.
– The first-rate person P¹ is a first-rate subject at its core; otherwise, in its relative sphere, it is subject and object at the same time. Here, there is no subject-object-split, no dualism but only a difference between a subject and object. (But a superiority of the subject over the object).
That also means, that as long as the subject is connected to +A, it can integrate all objects, even the negative ones, so that it will not come to a subject-object-split or fusion. That is very important for the therapy of psychoses.
However, the subject-object issue is not only relevant for psychiatry but it is also a superordinate philosophical problem. Therefore, it is briefly mentioned here because the problem’s solution offers practical consequences.
“The subject-object issue is a major problem of epistemology and of the occidental way of thinking in general, which consists of the question, as to determine the, in principle, two-parted relation between subject and object.” 39Meyers Großes Taschenlexikon, keyword: Subjekt-Objekt-Problem, 4. edition, 1992.
In my opinion, dualisms and monisms prevail in the second-rate realities – but in the first-rate reality, peacefull diversity dominates. Because our world is both, first-rate and second-rate, the question of what is dominant can only be answered with regard to a specific situation.
Can I, as a subject, view the world completely objectively? Only in part.
Can one objectify a subject completely? Probably just as little as you can turn an object into an actual subject. And: subjective things can be captured best using subjective methods. (→ Subject-object-reversal)
Belief and Knowledge
“Cogito, ergo sum“ or „Credo, ergo sum“?
“Nil sapientiae odiosius acumine nimio.” (“Nothing is more hateful to wisdom than too much cleverness.”) Seneca
A question of priority, similar to the one of matter and spirit, is one of belief and knowledge.
Belief pertains to spirit and knowledge seeks provable facts. The borders between belief and rationality are fluent.
In the first-rate reality, there is no conflict between both of them but rationality and knowledge are subordinate to belief. Every bit of knowledge is based on specific fundamental ideas. Belief, on the other hand, is not ultimately based on the fundamentals of knowledge or logic. How absurd would it be if a person were to demand: “Prove to me that you love me; that I am lovable; that I have a basic right to live, etc.?”
Belief moves the heart, the core, the absolute area of a person, more than knowledge. Belief is stronger but per se not better than knowledge. But: A good belief is better than good knowledge.
On the other side, negative or destructive belief can be much more dangerous than negative knowledge:
The belief in some sort of ideologies, leaders or idols killed innumerable people, more than anything else. Goebbels once said something like: `You don’t have to understand the leader (Führer, Hitler) but you do have to believe in him.´ Therefore, inhuman ideologies are the most dangerous.
Why should we not use belief in a positive way if it has so much power?
It seems, that we paradoxically renounce to talk about problems of belief, due to an exaggerated belief in science. It is not only good knowledge that should help our patients but also a good belief, that helps the patients to get better. I experienced that patients have more trust in a believable therapist than in an intelligent one.
Some catchwords referring to that topic:
– Belief and knowledge are like brothers – but belief is the most powerful, the most prolific and is said also to be the most terrifying.
– You may believe anything. Beliefs have a great variety – knowledge is limited.
– Belief contains knowledge but pure knowledge per se does not contain belief. One can say: “I believe this or that because there is proof.” But one cannot say: “I know this and that because I believe in it.”
– Knowledge is not accessible to everyone but belief is. Example: “The mother is talking to her baby … and nobody says: ‘What are you saying? The baby doesn’t even understand anything you say!'” 40[CIt. from Y. Cohen: `Das misshandelte Kind´, Brandes und Apsel-Verlag, Frankfurt a.M., 2004, p.31].
But the mother believes that her child understands, even if it does not know what she is saying because the mother imparts the most important: love that you can only believe in.
Similar thoughts in `Adieu Sagesse´ (Daphne Du Maurier); `The Delusions of Certainty´ (Siri Hustvedt). See also `Trust and knowledge´.
Examples of unilateral attitudes of belief and rationality:
Fideism: Overemphasis of belief associated with the undervaluation of knowledge.
Scientism: “Over-evaluation of science, that makes appear that all … problems can be solved through science.”
Positivism: Philosophy … assuming the priority of data of experience … and viewing metaphysical consideration as useless and impossible. (Cit. correspondingly by Schischkoff).
I distinguish between first-rate, actual sense/ meaning and second-rate, strange sense/ meanings:
• The first-rate, actual sense/ meaning can be absolute or relative. There is only one first-rate absolute sense/ meaning and many first-rate relative forms or definitions of sense/ meaning.
It is reasonable, for example, to do good things, to stay healthy and fit (and so on). However, I believe, that these are not of absolute but of relative importance and are embedded in a greater sense/ meaning, which I believe, is the unconditional love of God1 to us. That love still exists and causes happiness within us, when all the other sense/ meanings seem to be lost.
I call this first-rate sense `meta-sense´ because it is more important than all strange sense/ meanings but integrates them.
• In contrast to that, there are a large number of strange, second-rate, pseudo-absolute and -relative forms and aspects of sense/ meanings. These have two opposite and one zero component.
Example: If success has first-rate meaning for a certain person, then it has a strange, pseudo-absolute meaning and then it also seems reasonable, to fight or oppress other people if those are endangering the success. Besides: The pseudo-absolute sense tips over into senselessness at a certain point, if it is overused.
Relativity of Illness and Health (resp. Death and Life)
Only a few notes:
– We should free ourselves from viewing illness as something solely negative, something that has to be eliminated. Health and illness are only of relative relevance. That means, that illness also has positive aspects and health also has negative aspects. Experience shows the same: illness can have important functions for the protection, resistance, relief or identity of a person.
Although disease is predominantly negative and health predominantly positive, however, health can be predominantly negative and disease can be predominantly positive. Therefore, I also use terms such as “positive depression”, “positive psychotic phase”, “positive anxiety” or “positive compulsion”.
Examples for positive suffering/symptoms: withdrawal of drugs, surgery, compassion, detachment-processes.
Examples for ‘negative well-being’: well-being through drugs, symbiotic relationships, of flow experiences.
– There are connections between good/bad and healthy/ill: The good is correlated more with health, and the bad with illness.
– There is a fluent transition between illness and health. There are probably very few people that are completely healthy or completely ill – that also applies to the psychical sphere. We all have something neurotic and potentially psychotic in us.
– If health or illness is taken too seriously (absolutized), distorted theories and therapies may occur.
Against the Absolutization of Health
Our society not only has an idealized perception of health – looking at the WHO definition – but it also persuade us to believe that this ideal can be reached and that everyone is entitled to it. 41Keyword: „Healthismus“.
If we, as doctors, absolutize health, there will be disorders. Absolutized health can make people ill or charge another high price. If we enforce health at any price, the probability is high that it will disappear. That is a well-known mechanism we also experience on a daily basis. 42S.a. dynamic between Pro-sA and Contra-sA.
There is also the general trend that our society tends to absolutizing the entire worldly life.
(See also: “Role of disease and health” in `Metapsychiatry‘.)
Individual Units / Systems
As mentioned, I distinguish between the following pr units:
[The more absolute unit is mentioned first, then the relative one].
1. All /Nothingness and something
2. God and World
3. People and things
4. I and others
5. Spirit, soul and body
Short: 2-4 = WPI (frequently used abbreviation)
1. All /Everything, Nothingness and Something
I distinguish between first-rate and second-rate all/ everything, something and nothingness.
I use the terms `all´, ‘everything’, `reality’ and anything that is psychical relevant, as synonyms in this publication. Here about reality.
One hypothesis is: There are a large number of realities: one that is first-rate and many which are second-rate.
So there is one first-rate reality, which is manifold (W¹), and on the other hand, there are many second-rate, strange realities (W²), which are fashioned according to the all-or-nothing principle. That is, the second-rate all/ everything is opposed to the nothingness.
(For details, see EMERGENCE OF STRANGE, SECOND-RATE REALITIES or in the unabridged version).
2. God and the World (Transcendence and immanence)
I defined God1 as the unconditional, positive personal Absolute – provided a definition is even possible.
From the first rank perspective, it can be said that there is God1 only one , and with him, an immeasurable diversity of life and being, for God1 embraces all that is not ‒A without having to be completely identical with it.
There is a large number of things which are taken to be God1 or stand for God1 . They can resemble God1 in parts or be quite dissimilar to God1. Unlike the ‒A, however, they do not stand in absolute opposition to him. (That is why I name them `strange Pseudo-Absolutes´).
God1 is best and directly to be experienced through Jesus. He is thus directly “testable”. God1 permeates the world with the Holy Spirit but he is not identical with it. Unlike other Gods, he lets all of us decide freely if we want to be with or against him.
Therefore, the world is also ruled by other spiritual powers and not solely by God1 . That is why God1 is only partial (albeit always) effective, although he is omnipotent.
For further characteristics, see section `+ A ‘.
3. and 4. People, Individual (I)
One can specify human existence as follows:
I distinguish between first-rate, actual human existence, and second-rate, strange forms of human existence.
• There is only one first-rate, absolute human existence with many first-rate relative forms.
• In contrast to that, there are many strange, second-rate forms of human existence.
Since, by nature, every human being has the potential to be relatively positive and negative, man encounters problems when he idealizes his relative positive parts or taboos his relatively negative parts because then second-rate personal forms arise and then he lives against his original nature.
But this, I believe, affects more or less all humans. That is, every person has one first-rate as well as many second-rate forms of existence (such as otherworldly forms of existence). The latter are divided into two different or opposite parts and one zero part.
Regarding the question of the unity of body, soul and spirit, this implies, that if those have a first-rate, actual character, they are a diverse entity. But in second-rate forms of human existence, it also means that the human is also split at parts where it is unreal and strange. That kind of splitting does not only occur between body, soul and spirit but can also be found within the body, soul or spirit itself.
Briefly more to the following questions:
Does the human person have free will? Can the human person be the creator of something absolutely new?
I believe so. Otherwise, every new creation, every kind of creativity, every invention would be a combination of old components only. Anything really and completely new would not exist. There would not be anything that is completely one’s own. Wouldn’t innovation and progress be only a better, new use of something old in that case? Do artists just combine familiar things only in a new way? Are there no real inventions?
Those questions are connected to the individuality of one’s personality. Otherwise, everything would only be a new composition of old components (genes). Then, the human person would only be a product.
The Human and the Absolute
Hypothesis: The human is designed towards the +Absolute (+ A ).
People definitely need an Absolute. And: people want to be absolute themselves, too. Every person has one or many Absolutes that can be actual or strange. Humans often try to find their Absolute in the Relative. With that, not actual but strange Absolutes are created which elevate a person but also cause the person to break down.
The human is also `AR-dimensioned´ i.e. with absolute and relative parts. However, other than the rest of the world, every human has it’s special and specific Absolute, here stated as ‘Attitude toward an Absolute‘. (Look there).
The absolute sphere of a human person has two parts:
1st The mentioned individual choice/ attitude of the Absolute,
2nd The absolute attributes which are given to the human person by God1 such as first-rate freedom, personal integrity, the right to self-determination, absolute identity and dignity.
The world gives a person just something Relative, and therefore only an ephemeral existence which can be manipulated and suppressed – in my opinion, that is a situation which causes mental disorders. So the human person is only completely absolute in his choice/ attitude of the actual Absolute. That means, man as a whole is never completely absolute, nor absolutely himself, nor totally identical with himself, nor completely real or true, nor totally consistent, nor absolutely unconditional, nor fully independent, and so on (except 1st). Instead, the human person is always somewhat paradoxical or senseless, a little strange, split, chaotic, fixated, crazy, extreme, uncertain, pseudo-autonomous etc.
What does the human need?
It seems that the human person needs a large number, especially love and food. But what is more important? I believe that love is more important for a person than food. People have a great longing for love. In our earthly sphere, in shape of the search for a partner; spiritually, in the shape of the search for God1. The experiment of Friedrich II of Staufen is well-known. To find the primeval language of the human person is, he commanded women to take care of orphaned children without talking to them. The children received anything but no love. They died sadly. And there are still a large number of people nowadays that are experiencing the same dilemma. They have everything that they need in their lives, yet they kill themselves. That’s why I believe that man needs love. I believe that our souls carry the pain of the loss of paradise throughout the entire life and they are longing for paradise to be back. F. Nietzsche said: “… all joy wants eternity”. 43 Thus Spoke Zarathustra: Part IV: Chapters 10–20 (p. 3)
Modern psychology however, views the human person primarily only as immanent. According to Rudolf, “the goal of the ego’s activities is to assert its own interests while at the same time ensuring the necessary social relationships.”(p. 67)
The Human and the World
The person differs from the impersonal world as follows:
– The person has access to the sphere of the Absolute. Therefore, the person has an absolutely free choice – the impersonal world does not. The person has the potential of self-determination and free choice absolutely only in relation to the Absolute and relatively towards the Relative.
Thus each person has his own individual Absolute and is so individual (indivisible and unique).
– The human person has the potential to create something which is not derivable.
Those possibilities are being disputed by some psychological theories. Some neuroscientists are trying to persuade us to believe that the ‘I’ is only a product of neuronal processes and does not have its own will.
– The human person has the ability of self-reflection and has self-awareness.
– The world (W) and person (P) interrelate with each other. P is embedded in the world, is a part of the world and is influenced or even determined by it – on the other hand, P also changes and determines the world.
These pr units are of great importance when it comes to the possible causes of mental disorders.
Because the structures and characteristics of societies and states are essentially the same as those of realities, they are therefore, only mentioned briefly..
Such as all the pr systems, they represent as a mixture of one first-rate and many second-rate realities. Every society, state, community or any kind of group has positive or negative influences on the individual person. The second-rate units/ systems, which are dominated by different ideologies, have a predominantly negative influence. The dynamics in societies and states are quite similar to the psychodynamics of humans.
The goodness of a society or a state is recognized above all if it is able to integrate its weak or ill members.
[Person/ Psyche and I → `Psychology´]
5. Personal Mind, Soul and Body
Especially for the therapy, it seems to me important that the spirit not only has a much greater influence on the psyche than the body but also that the spirit is considered much freer, more variable for therapeutic interventions and/ or is most important for personality changes. Therapies that emphasize the material-somatic sphere (e.g., the psycho-pharmaceuticals) are of course still relevant.| More see Relations between Spirit, Psyche and Body.
Embedding of pr Units
The graphic shows:
1) that the different pr systems/units have similar fundamental structures.
They consist of noun-representatives, verb-representatives, representatives of the adjectives and their connections (syntax), especially in form of subject- and predicate- or object-representatives (horizontal level).
All these aspect may have an absolute or relative or no meaning (vertical level).
The respective Absolute determines the respective system/unit.
2) Further the graphic shows how smaller systems are embedded in bigger ones.
I A indicates that the individual has its own `attitude toward the absolute´ – contrary to non-personal areas – and thus cannot be determined automatically from other units.
The illustration of the connection of the different units/systems is important to understand, how certain changes, especially disease-promoting influences, can be transferred from one system to another one.
The same classification for all the pr units, shall make it easier to understand the connections.
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