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 part 'METAPSYCHOLOGY', I develop a general classification of everything that is
psychically relevant.
• 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 (keywords).
This is what I call the 'Dimensions'
of the psychical Relevant.[1]
Since the respective Absolute is the determining factor for
every psychical Relevant - as well as for every human being
(!) - it is the focal point of this study.
In part 'PSYCHOLOGY', this general classification is transferred to the person. Again, I start from an analogy between language and psyche. This leads to some new interpretations of person and psyche.
In part `METAPSYCHIATRY´, I also use
the classification shown in part `Metapsychology´ and start
from the hypothesis that mental disorders are mainly caused
by `Inversions´
of the fundamental
meanings, the dimensions, mentioned
above. I.e., if absolute, relative or
0 meanings (or similar fundamental
meanings) are confused, I speak of
inversion.
The confusion of such fundamental
meanings is ubiquitous. Typical
examples are ideologies. These, as
well as similar dogmatic attitudes in
families or in the individual, occur
with claim
to absoluteness
that absolutizes something Relative
and at the same time negates and
excludes others. This leads to
fundamental reversals of
meanings: What was a Relative, now becomes a 'strange Pseudo-Absolute' (sA) and the negated becomes
a `strange Nothing´ (s0).[2].
Strange Absolute and
Nothing form pairs of opposites,
'all-or-nothing-complexes', which I
have generally called "It"and in the person "strange Self"
(sS), because these terms describe very well
what is meant:
`it'= a general, unspecified cause of an
occurrence (e.g. It makes me angry/ sad/ sick
...), `strange Self´= a strange personal
center. [3]
These Its, or strange Selves, represent new,
strange, independent entities which can cause strange, second-rate
realities general and personal
and thus also mental disorders.
If the entire psyche (i.e. all
aspects of the psyche) is involved
in this process, psychotic symptoms may ensue. If, however, these events only affect one or a small
number of aspects, then, depending on the nature of these aspects,
symptoms will arise which are 'merely' neurotic, psychosomatic, or of
another category. In my opinion, these diseases can only be explained
if they are based on disturbances in the absolute sphere of a person.
If a person can accept problems as a part of life, considering them to
be only of relative importance, it is highly unlikely that this person
will succumb to a mental illness. However, when 'something' Relative
is absolutized and becomes established as an Absolute, this Absolute
will function as an It or strange Self which determines the person.
This "something" will be given too absolute a status, whereas
the person will be attributed too relative a status. This “something“
will attain too much independence, whereas the person will
become too dependent. This “something“ will become the subject,
whereas the person becomes its object. This “something“ will
become personified, whereas the person will become 'something'.
This “something“ will
dominate the person and not the person the `something´. This is the
“victory“ of the Relative over a person.
To understand the genesis of such disorders, it is important to
look into a process, that I name 'Spreading and compression'.
By spreading, every inversion may cause multiple disorders, just
as a disorder may be caused by a variety of different
inversions.
This process is explained in more detail in part
'Metapsychiatry'.
As described in part 'PSYCHIATRY'
and summarized in the 'Summary table', these 'Its' or
strange-Selves can cause various diseases.
It is in particular at the example of schizophrenic psychoses
that this becomes most obvious. From this point of view, I think
the problem of the psychodynamic genesis of psychoses is solved theoretically
and in principle.
In part `METAPSYCHOTHERAPY´,
I analyze the 'psychotherapeutic quality' of the most relevant
worldviews and religions.
In part `PSYCHOTHERAPY’,
I examine the
most well-known psychotherapeutic schools of thought.
In the chapter `Primary
Psychotherapy´, I introduce a theory that is free of
ideology and which I believe to be the best against mental
disorders.
Motto: “He is a doctor
who knows the invisible,
that has no name, nor matter but still an
effect.” Paracelsus
About me, Torsten Oettinger, the author of this
book: I am a psychiatrist-psychotherapist and publish here
the experiences and knowledge which I have been able to
gather throughout the decades that I have worked in this
specific area. I believe that the following texts will open
up new perspectives in psychiatry and psychotherapy for the
following reasons:
1. In these writings, a new theory of the psyche and its
disorders is developed.
2. I investigate the influence of different ideologies and
worldviews on the psyche and on 'psycho-theories'.
Ad 1. I classify the psyche and the psychical
Relevant (pR) in a new way: I derive their classification
from basic patterns of language. This means that I use
language as an analogy for the psychical Relevant (pR),
since our language is the best tool which captures
everything important to us and excludes nothing that is
psychically relevant. Therefore, in this study, basic
language patterns serve to differentiate the psychical
Relevant in general and the psyche in particular. According
to their fundamental meaning, these differentiations
are then further divided into the "dimensions":
absolute or relative - as keywords - (or
nothing) or similar fundamental meanings.
[For the special role of nothing, see later.]
This classification includes everything that is
psychologically relevant and, in contrast to university
psychology, it goes beyond what can only be scientifically
ascertained because that is only part of what the psyche is.
(This is thoroughly discussed in the parts
`Metapsychology' and `Psychology´.)
"Inversions" (the confusion of existential, fundamental
meanings) are seen as the main cause of mental illness.
In the section 'Metapsychiatry', I show how
these inversions generate strange Absolutes, which then
form second-rate, strange realities such as mental
illnesses.
Ad 2. Although different ideologies and worldviews
are of great importance to the psyche and psychological
theory formation, this is hardly reflected from academic
side.(See more to this topic in `Criticism of materialist science and
psychology´.)
The reason for this is that
psychology and psychiatry are too one-sidedly defined as
science.
What is scientifically not accessible will be largely
ignored. [4] But the exclusion of such topics leads to deficient
theories and therapies and to a strong increase in psycho-practices
(`psycho-boom'), which often gives people dubious answers to questions
that are not answered by conventional medicine. (See more to this topic in `Esoterism´.)
In my work, I focus more on life itself than merely on science.
Therefore, I attend to that which is of ultimate concern for the
patients, regardless of whether or not it is scientifically
ascertainable.For me, the credibility of statements is the decisive
criterion, not their provability - credibility which includes knowledge and experience but is super-ordinate to it. [5]
In this basic assumptions (such as philosophies resp.
worldviews and religions), which are the foundations of current psychological and psychiatric theories, are critically examined as
to their psychological and psychotherapeutic
relevance and functionality.
Furthermore, I
develop a specific
theory and psychotherapy which includes subjective and spiritual factors. Thus, the theory
and
therapy of mental disorders are substantially expanded.
One might ask the polemical question whether our
psychology and psychiatry themselves do not suffer from poor health.
They seem to be affected by disorders which could be called
“scientitis” or “dogmatitis”, since they are too focused on science.
In scientific writings, reference is made very rarely to philosophical
or even religious insights. According to the 'malicious' words of Karl
Kraus: “Psychoanalysis is that mental illness for which it regards
itself as therapy”[6] we psychiatrists
should ask ourselves in which way our theories might be wrong or even
'in ill health' - or even we have reduced "the diseases of the mind to
mindless diseases" (Basaglia).
(For more details, see the unabridged German version.)
In the beginning was God,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God … (~ by John 1:1-4)
• Metapsychology is the theory of
everything which is psychically relevant.
[7]
• Everything
about which a person speaks or can speak is psychically
relevant.
• The psychical Relevant is best expressed by way of
language.
• General language structures are very suitable as
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
super-ordinate.
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 psycho-dynamics, 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. [8]
I
divide the psychical Relevant (or the reality) in general
after:
•
Differentiations
• Dimensions.
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:
I
distinguish the following 3 stages in the classification of
the psychical Relevant
(dimensions and differentiations).
DIMENSIONS |
DIFFERENTIATIONS |
1st stage of dimensions: the Absolute (A), the Relative (R) and the Nothingness (0). |
1st stage of differentiation: 4 main aspects: being, life, qualities, connections (Abbr. BLQC) |
2nd stage of dimensions: 7 synonyms of the Absolute and Relative |
2nd stage of differentiation: 23 single aspects |
3rd stage of dimensions: All terms listed in the overview table, concerning 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.)
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. [10]
I would like to expand and clarify their hypothesis. I
believe:
• Basic characteristics of the language in relation to its structure,
dynamics, and quality statements 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.
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.
|
|||
|
P s y c h i c a l l y r e l e v a n t f o r m s |
||
|
`main aspects´ correspond with |
||
|
nouns |
I. forms of being |
units |
verbs |
II. forms of life |
dynamics |
|
adjectives |
III. qualities |
qualities |
|
syntax |
IV. connections |
connections, |
Therefore, 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).|
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:
Forms of l a n g u a g e |
SINGLE ASPECTS |
|
I. NOUNS Articles
|
Forms of being |
Units 1 Everything / Something (Nothingness) 2 God / World 3 People / Things 4 I / Other(s) 5 Personal Spirit/ Soul, Body 6 - / Gender |
II. VERBS Modal auxiliary verbs
Full
verbs
|
Forms of life
Modalities
Activities
Times |
Modalities 7 to be 8 to want 9 to have 10 can 11 must 12 should 13 may, be allowed Dynamics 14 to create 15 to do, to produce 16 to perceive 17 to reproduce 18 to judge 19 past 20 present 21 future |
III. ADJECTIVES |
Qualities |
Qualities 22 right, wrong 23 negative, positive |
The single aspects of differentiation are differently dimensioned. In the 1st-5th unit in the above table, the aspects with absolute dimensionality are named first, whilst aspects with relative dimensionality are shown behind the slash. Further explications can be found in the unabridged German version.
The 3rd
stage of differentiation is
presented in the 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 [11]
Similar Ortega y Gasset: " ...
it is by no means indifferent how we formulate things.
The law of life perspective is not only subjective but rooted in the
nature of things ... itself. ... The mistake is to assume that it is
up to our arbitrariness to assign things to their proper rank."
[In:
„Triumph
des Augenblicks Glanz der Dauer“ DVA Stuttgart, 1983 S. 75ff.
Tranlated by me.]
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.
Hints
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)
Comparison of the most important `fundamental meanings´.
absolute |
relative |
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). [14] Religion? (P. Tillich). Genes?
Pleasure or reality? Ideologies?
The laws of nature?
The views differ. I call it the Absolute (A).
I
distinguish
• first-rate, actual Absolute (A) [15]
• 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?[16]
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. [17]
Especially psychotherapists of the “Viennese School”
(W. Daim and I. Caruso) were convinced that
misabsolutizations are decisive of the emergence of mental
disorders. Unfortunately, their work is little known.
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. 18]
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
character of the Absolute (A) becomes more apparent when
looking at the origin of the word:
It originates from the Latin word “absolutus” and denotes
a matter or subject which is detached and independent.
In this study, I use the following 7 synonyms:
1. absolute
2. self
3. actual
4. whole, complete
5. unconditional
6. primary, first-rate
7. independent
The term `absolute´ is the keyword.
Expressed nounically: The absolute is the solved, the self
(the with-itself-identical), the actual, the unified, the
unconditional, the primary and the independent, the most important,
the most essential and existential. It appears as the primary, the
primordial reason, the primordial thing, primordial leap, the
ultimately determining, the incomparable, unquestionable, basic,
fundamental, main, basic and elementary.
It is the core, center, heart, switching point, center of the subject,
etc.
Rank of the Absolute
After
the rank I distinguish actual first- and strange second-rate
Absolutes.
[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.[19]
• To the second-rate, strange Absolutes (sA) =
the Pseudoabsolutes
- positive/pro
and negative/contra-sA (+sA and ‒sA)
- strange
nothingness (s0 or only 0).[20]
They play an essential part in the
emergence of mental disorders and will be discussed in greater detail in
the
later chapters.
Spheres of the Absolute
The first-rate actual Absolute (A¹) has the following parts:
• A-center = the `Core-Absolute´ is only and
exclusively-absolute.
[Other possible synonyms: absolute, self,
whole, unitary, unconditional, primary, independent
Absolute].
• A-external = the external Absolute is
relative an `Also-Absolute´.
[Other possible synonyms: relative, different, possible, partial, conditional,
secondary, dependent 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.
Representatives, Places of Occurrences
• Representatives of the 3 actual Absolutes
- Representatives of +A¹:
God1/
love as the +A¹; Personal: the + `absolute attitude´ toward the
Absolute´.
- Representatives of −A¹: `the absolute evil' and its choice.
- Representatives of the `absolute attitude´: the absolute sphere of
person.
[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate
my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with
definitions of official theology.]
• 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.
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. [21]
[Pro-sA and +sA on the one hand and contra-sA and ‒sA on the other
hand will be viewed as equal throughout this
book.]
The terms will be explained in detail in the section 'Metapsychiatry”.
The Relative 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. [23]
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. [Hint: I
partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God,
which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
1. relative, relational
2. different
3. possible
4. partial
5. conditional
6. secondary
7. dependent [24]
The term `relative´ is the keyword.
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 (Tab. 4)
Absolute |
Relative |
absolute self actual whole unconditional first-rate (primary) independent |
relative different possible partial conditional secondary dependent |
More about 'The Absolute and Relative in comparison' - in the unabridged German version.
(Fig. 5)
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.
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´).
I
distinguish the following pr systems/units that will be
described more specifically later on:
(I denote the more absolute before the Relative).
1. Everything, All - Something 2. God - World 3. People -
Things 4. I - Others 5. Spirit - Body, Mind.
If you look at the dimensions, there is an absolute and a
relative area in every system/ unit.
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.)
“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).
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)
L A N G U A G E |
P S Y C H I C A L R E L E V A N T
|
|||
Fundamental
Meanings |
absolute / and relative adjectives and
sentences |
DIMENSIONS
|
||
a1 absolute / relative a2 self / different a3 actual / possible a4 whole / partial a5 unconditional / conditional a6 primary (first-rate) / secondary (second-rate) a7 independent / dependent |
||||
|
MAIN ASPECTS (General Differentiation) |
|||
Word class |
Nouns Verbs Adjectives |
Being Life Qualities |
I Units: Spirit / Matter II Dynamics: Life / Functioning III Qualities: abs./ relative Qualities |
|
Syntax |
Contexts |
IV Contexts: Subjects/ Objects |
||
|
SINGLE ASPECTS (Single Differentiation) |
|||
|
NOUNS |
Forms of being |
Units 1 All / something (nothing) 2 God / world 3 People / things 4 I / other(s) 5 pers. spirit / soul, body 6 Gender |
|
VERBS Modal auxiliary
|
Forms of life and Modalities |
Modalities 7 to be 8 to want 9 to have 10 can 11 must 12 should 13 may, be allowed |
||
Full verbs |
Activities |
Dynamics
15 to do, to produce 16 to perceive 17 to reproduce 18 to judge 19 past 20 present 21 future |
||
ADJECTIVES |
Qualities |
Qualities 22 right, wrong 23 negative, positive |
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!”)
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 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.
[Hint: 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”.[25] The
definitions by the Self of Kernberg and others goes into the
same direction.
It appears good, to define the above named attributes
(nationality, profession ...) as something that is part of one’s
actual Self. 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´).
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.
[26]
[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.
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, for example, `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).
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.[28] They create
second-rate worlds/realities, second-rate personal and
individual changes (WPI²). Those may become further
second-rate causes, especially of illness. The It/sA as
second-rate causes have very special characteristics and
effects, which will be listed in detail later on (s.`General effects of the Its´). It
is worth mentioning that they mainly have indirect and
ambivalent effects. They also extend far beyond the original
range of action (s. Spreading and compression).
They are the cause for vicious cycles.
[29]
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.” [30]
That also means there is no absolute clear interpretation of
symptoms, dreams and other kinds of pr phenomena but
interpretations may only have high or low validity. (In that
context, it is good to mention that opposite interpretations of
second-rate realities are more likely than one would assume.)
When it comes to therapy, that means that: There is a great
variety of therapeutic possibilities, even if the quality is
very different.
3rd hypothesis: Is about an exclusion of the
2nd hypothesis: An absolutely positive cause has no absolutely
negative result, and the other way around: An absolutely
negative cause has no absolutely positive result.
Expressed in religious terms: There is nothing absolutely
negative coming from 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´).
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.[31]
S. Kierkegaard said something similar. Therefore, I believe that
the goal of absolute autonomy and independence, that a lot of
people and therapists have, is unreal and overexerts us.
I distinguish between first-rate, actual freedom and second-rate
“freedoms”.
• The first-rate, actual freedom may be absolute or relative.
There is only one first-rate, absolute freedom with a lot of
first-rate, relative forms of freedom.
• In contrast to that, there are a large number of second-rate
(pseudo-)absolute and relative² “freedoms”. Those are split into
one too free, 'libertarian', one strange and one unfree part.
Freedom is first-rate if it is connected with responsibility and
embedded in +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.
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.
[32]
(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.
If we continue with the above-mentioned classification, we could say:
Terms that express absolutely positive are: God, love, Holy Spirit, absolute good, etc.
I distinguish the following first-rate positive Absolutes:
1. "God" - as quasi unconditional, comprehensive,
positive absolute personal - as far as a "definition" is possible here
at all.
[Hints:
- Because these are my conceptions of God and there are many other or
no conceptions besides, I partly write God1 in part to indicate that these
are my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with
definitions of official theology.
- God1 is of course more
than 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.
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.)
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.).
About the Subject
I am dealing
here above all with the person (P) as a subject.[34]
• We can distinguish between two parts of the first-rate person
(P¹) as the subject:
- P¹ as an absolute subject = the absolute
te I-self, with an absolutely free choice of the A and with
absolute attributes such as uniqueness and singularity.
- P¹ as a relative subject.
A first-rate subject (P¹, 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.
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."[35]
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.
Additional questions:
Can I, as a subject, view the world completely objectively? Only
in part.
Can one objectify a subject completely? Probably just as little
as you can turn an object into an actual subject.
And: subjective things can be captured best using subjective
methods. (→ Subject-object-reversal)
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!'"
[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.
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. [37]
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.
[38]
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'.)
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
6. (Gender)
Short: 2-4 = WPI (frequently used abbreviation)
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).
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 '.
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”.[39]
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.
Society, states
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´]
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.
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.
In this
chapter, the terms, definitions and dimensions of the person and
psyche are explored.
Since the terms 'psyche' and 'person' are rather similar, both
of them will be discussed together in the following paragraphs
(whereby the concept of the person is more comprehensive). Both
notions will be abbreviated by the letter 'P', unless
further specified. While the term 'human' comprehends the
spirit, soul and body alike, the concepts of the person and
psyche emphasize spirit and soul. Therefore, the concept of the
person appears better suited to discuss the topic at hand than
the notion of the human.
Previously, the similarities between the 'structures' of the
world and those of the person in their respective psychological
relevance were discussed. These are similarities between the
'outer' world on the one hand and the person with their 'inner'
world, their psyche, on the other hand. Due to these
similarities, a repetition of certain parts already presented in
the chapter 'metapsychology' cannot be avoided.
• The psychical Relevant (pR): Everything that is
relevant for to psyche of a human.
• World (W): human and environment.
• Human: Entirety of the spirit, psyche and body.
• Person (P): The individual human especially with its
psychical-spiritual dimension.
• Psyche: The personal psychical Relevant.
• I (I): Individual person in its entirety. (For more details
see: Own definition of
the I.)[40]
• Ego:
second-rate, strange I.
• Self: The Absolute of person.
• Personal something: The personal Relative (relative dimension
of a person, esp. the body of a person).
The
definitions of the term 'person' vary in specialist literature:
- “An individual in his unique character.” (Schischkoff)
- “The human as cognitive individual.” (Brockhaus)
- “The human as individual in his physical and mental whole with
the capabilities of an Ego which is conscious of
itself." (Psychology)
- “Human as an individual spiritual being, in his specific
peculiarity as the bearer of a consistent, conscious Ego.”
(Wahrig)
I define the person as described above: Person (P) = “the individual, particularly as seen from the perspective of their mind and spirit.” Or: Person = "Totality of all forms of personal being, life and qualities in their contexts, represented by analog personal nouns, verbs and adjectives (and other language components) and their syntax in various dimensions."
Customary Definitions:
Definitions
of psyche also vary widely. Two quotations show that:
1. "The prevailing understanding of psyche today refers to the
'total system' of all those (life) 'impulses' that 'the
vernacular' has long termed as inner life or soul life, there
subdividing the same into rational mind and emotional life, as
does academic psychology too. This refers first to the totality
of such 'life expressions' or self-reactions that are primarily
or exclusively accessible to self-perception, and thus can only
be observed and described from the subjective or today's
so-called 'first-person perspective' ... ".[41]
2) Psyche = “Entirety of subject-linked appearances of
reflection of the environment caused by higher nerve functions.”[42]
While
the first definition is quite in line with my conception,
the second is more in line with the neuro-biological
tendencies of today's academic psychology. Their main
problem, however, is that the psyche of a human being is
inadequately captured by purely scientific methods.
A number of authors, including myself, attempt to overcome
this shortcoming, including Frank A. Gerbode:
"In this sense, `metapsychology´ restores the original
meaning of `psychology´ as `the study of the soul, or spirit´,
and the applications of metapsychology reflect the perennial
common goal of both therapy and religion, whether one calls
this goal the attainment of sanity, of enlightenment, of
happiness, or of salvation.“ [43]
It is the objective of this discussion to facilitate an
extension of perspective, rather than to exchange the one
one-sidedness by another. Not: brain on the one hand and spirit
on the other. Not: psychology on the one hand, and philosophy or
religion on the other and still to set emphases.
I define psyche as the personal psychical Relevant.[44]
And I define psychology as "the study of the personal psychical
Relevant."
Psyche is the sphere of a person that contains, represents
and reflects everything that is relevant to it.
That includes all, which affects the inner of person itself, as
well as that which is meaningful to the person outside of
her/him.
That also means:
1) In terms of location, the psyche is not
limited to one person. While it has a core (the Self ), which is
individual and unique, it is also connected to the environment
and transcends the physical boundaries of the person. Thus, the
psyche of each and every person is embedded in a
metapsychological sphere.
2) The psyche cannot be limited to certain
topics or aspects. It can include, contain, process and reflect
all that is relevant to a person. This fact is important, since
there has always been a tendency of bounding the psyche to
certain aspects. As I said, at present there is a tendency to
limit the psyche to what can be objectified and scientifically
proven.
3) For the human psyche, something may be of
absolute, relative or no importance. The most important for a
psyche is, what is of absolute importance.
4) Since the human is able to reflect upon
himself, he simultaneously occupies the role both of a subject
as well as that of an object. Here is a danger of
subject-object-division, as well as subject-object-fusion or
dissolution of the two. (More details in `Subject-Object-Problem´ and in `Subject-object-reversal´).
In
a vein similar to all the other psychical Relevant (pR), the
psyche has distinct dimensions and differentiations.
(Compare also with the explanations in The General Psychical Relevant)
The dimensions
of the psyche are the following: absolute, relative (and zero)
dimensions, or their 7 synonyms.
In this study, the differentiation
of that which is psychically relevant, as well as the differentiation
of the psyche, are deduced from the forms of language portrayed above,
leading us to the define four main differentiation aspects of the
psyche (`1st classification stage´):
I. Psychical forms/structures
– deduced from personal substantives.
II. Psychical dynamics/
“movements” - deduced from personal verbs (and predicates).
III. Psychical qualities
- deduced from personal adjectives.
IV. Psychical connections,
subjects, objects, predicates - deduced from the personal syntax.[45]
That is to say: Psyche has something to do with what
person-relevant nouns, verbs, adjectives express in absolute,
relative, or void importance.
And psychic connections have something to do with what, for the
person relevant subjects and predicates resp. objects represent.
A further differentiation is the `2nd
classification stage´.[46]
This 2nd
classification stage´ corresponds to the second vertical column
of the Summary
table.
A
summary involving relevant keywords might say: The psyche comprises: the
personal sense, identity, truth, union (wholeness), the unconditional
(security), causes and triggers, freedom (a 1-a7). Furthermore: personal
All and nothing, God and the world, other people and me, mind and body,
gender, conditions, aspirations, possessions, possibilities,
necessities, obligations, rights, new and old, actions, information,
representations, meanings, past, present, future, wrong and right
(individual aspects) and all related personal `movements', thus actions
and processes - which are dominated by the dimensions, i.e. with their
absolute, relative or negligible role.
To a `3rd classification stage´ one could attribute all
terms found in the`Summary table´.
A most comprehensive definition could formulate the
concept as follows: A person's psyche includes everything that
concerns the person. All things can concern a person, but a person is
most affected by what has absolute meaning for him or her. That which
affects the person finds its most important and nuanced expression in
language ((individual and general).
Thus, all things about which persons speak are expressions of their
psyches. In this respect, what is expressed in language correlates
with what concerns the psyche, and the patterns of the language used
correlate with the patterns of the psyche.[47]
Advantage of
this definition:
One can well classify psyche by using analogous language
forms (differentiations) and their meanings by different dimensions.
Thus we get different personal resp. psychical relevant units or
subunits. Thereby the term 'psyche´ is not limited to the realm of the
mind and soul but includes the body, which is also 'inspirited'.
In this way, the body belongs to the psyche. In my opinion, this
definition expresses much more clearly that these are not two separate
entities (body, psyche) but rather, this is a union with different
accentuation.
Moreover, as I said, the definition of psyche is even broader, for it
includes not only the person himself but also everything outside the
person, which is of some significance to him.
Classification of
Person and Psyche
|
||
DIMENSIONS
|
||
Spheres: absolute relative area (R)
0-area
|
Self core of Self and exterior of Self = the Relative of P = the Nothingness of P |
|
7 synonymous
A/R terms
|
7 pers. A-
and R- areas |
|
absolute self real/ actual whole unconditional primary independent |
relative different possible partial conditional secondary dependent |
|
ranks:
1.
2. 0 |
first-rate of
P second-rate of P null of P |
|
orientations:
pro/+
contra/− 0 |
pro/+ of the dimensions contra/‒ 0 orientation |
|
DIFFERENTIATION
|
||
main
aspects:
being(B)
life (L) qualities (Q) context (C) |
B of person/ psyche L of person/ psyche Q of person/ psyche C of person: subjects of P, objects of P |
|
units:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. |
pers. representatives of: All / some (nothingness) God/ world people/ things I / others pers. spirit/ psyche/ body gender |
|
more single aspects: |
e.g., aspirations, possessions, opportunities, obligations, needs, rights, actions, images, information, meanings, past etc. of/ in P |
Thus, similar to The General Psychical Relevant also the 'classification' of person and psyche is
undertaken according to the following categories:
• Dimensions:
- their spheres (absolute, relative or 0-range)
- their 7 synonyms
- their order of priority (first / second-rate)
- their orientation pro +/ contra ‒).
• Differentiation by means of analog patterns of speech
which are relevant to P.
• Units that may be relevant to P.
Note. That which is personal and Absolute will be termed
the 'Self'. In the first-rate personal sphere, the relative sphere
of P is at the same time an also-self-sphere because the relative
personal is enclosed by the Self. This is not the case with the
second-rate, strange personal to be discussed later in the `Metapsychiatry'
section.
(For more information, please ether see the table on the right and in
the following]
Unlike the classification of the `general psychically relevant',
here the person and the psyche are entirely central. Thus,
individual new terms or terms that have to be defined more
specifically, have appeared and need to be defined with
accuracy. These are, in particular, the terms 'Self', 'I', and
'It'. In order to remain rather close to reality in my study, I
have attributed to these terms the meaning they are given in
everyday language. However, further clarification of these terms
is necessary, since they are also terms which are central in
psychoanalysis. There is a considerable degree of congruence
with the concepts discussed in psychoanalysis, however, there
are also some differences.
The
structure of the person and the psyche shall be described more
specifically in the following paragraphs.[48]
I derive the psyche (= the personal psychical
Relevant) in the same the way I derived The General Psychical Relevant (see part `Metapsychology') because the structure
of psyche resp. person resembles the structure of the
world as that of the world in its perception by
man.
However, there are decisive differences: The person has
absolute freedom of choice, the ability to create and to
reflect upon himself/ herself.
Similar to the dimensions of the 'world' resp. the psychical
Relevant in general, I distinguish with regard to the person
between the Absolute, the Relative and the Nothingness. That
which is the personal Absolute will be termed the 'Self', that
which is personal Relative shall be termed the 'personal
something', and the individual person will be referred to as
the 'I'.
(As mentioned above: `Ego´ is the second-rate I;
we will return to this matter at a later stage).
Thus, what concerns psyche/person can also be divided with the
help of the linguistic analogies into the four main areas and
the 23 individual aspects with the corresponding dimensions.
Derivation of the four main aspects of person in their absolute
and relative dimensions
(1st classification level):
Analogous to this, psyche is, classified according to the IV main aspects, the personal psychological Relevant with their being, life, properties and their contexts in absolute, relative and 0 dimensions. (The 0 dimension is not drawn here.)
Further
derivation into 23 individual aspects
(→ 2nd classification level):
llustration of the derivation of the psyche from
analogies of the language with the central Absolute and peripheral
Relatives.
The main forms of language of the upper row are equal
to the psychically relevant aspects of the lower row.
On the right hand side you can find a list of the 23 aspects of
differentiation.
This illustration should also clarify that any aspect, that is not 0
(nothing), has an absolute and a relative (grey) part.
Each
form (noun) is related to certain dynamics (verbs) as action (action
verb) and/ or process (inchoative verb) with corresponding quality
(adjective) in a corresponding context (syntax). The syntax gives us
information about the functions and relations of the named personal
"elements". We can differentiate here according to the function:
personal subject, predicate / object and depending on the direction of
the "dynamic": active, passive and reflexive.
All this on the basis of different dimensions.
This categorization has the advantage that nothing personal or psychical
or psychical Relevant is excluded but also taken into account the fact
that everything psychical Relevant can become an absolute importance and
than determines a person.
There are
the following 2 (or 3) areas of dimensions of person and psyche: [49]
1. personal Absolute (pA) =
the Self
(S).
2. personal Relative =
personal something.[50]
(3. personal nothingness).[51]
Besides, there are still the second-rate, strange Selves, which
I discuss more precisely in 'Metapsychiatry'.
„What
lives is ineradicable, remains free in its deepest form of
servitude, remains one even if you split it to the base, remains
unwounded even if you pierce it to the marrow and its being
flies victorious from your hands.“
(F. Hölderlin)
Is there a Self? And if there is, what exactly is it?
Does every person have a Self? Even a new-born? Is the Self an entity which is given at birth or is it developed with time? Is the I-self an unity, as Hölderlin wrote, or is it split, for instance into “I” and “me” (G.H. Mead), or else, as Lacan wrote, into “je” and “moi”? Or is the I-self, in line with Nietzsche’s beliefs, with regard to morals, always a “Dividual” - an entity which is divided within itself? Is the Self and therefore also the 'I', thus never an individual, undivided, a whole?
In modern psychology, the Self is generally considered to
be: [52]
1 – “System of conscious and unconscious
knowledge of what a person believes to be.” Similarly: The Self is understood as the
awareness of oneself.
2 – a “term to describe the coordinated control of these
knowledge processes, frequently referred to as 'ego'.” (S. Freud).[53]
3 – a “term to describe an inherent principle of a
person's development, whereby the Self represents the cause and the
purpose of the maturing and differentiation of the personality in the
sense of self-realization.”(C.G. Jung, C. Rogers et al)
4 – The Self as “the sum of self-representations”.
Similarly, O. Kernberg wrote: “The Self is an intra-psychic structure
which is constituted by multifarious self-representations and
corresponding emotions. Self-representations are affective-cognitive
structures that reflect the self-perception of a person.” [54]
5 – Kohut speaks of “the realization through action of
the (life) plan laid down in [man's] nuclear self.”[55]
6 – Similarly, Tilmann Moser: “No-one has an innate self
which could come to maturity by its own efforts ... However, all men
are born with a desire to develop a self ...”. [56]
7 – Psychology Lexicon: Self - “The entirety of all
qualities, behaviors and attitudes which one believes to be
characteristic for one's own person.”[57]
8 – Rudolph: “the self can be defined as the moment when
the Ego, on a quest for an object, comes to take itself for an
object.” [58]
9 - Today's philosophy of the mind explains it in the
following way: “If by `self´ one refers to an essential, immutable
nucleus of the person, some modern philosophers of mind believe that
no such thing exists. The idea of a self as an immutable essential
nucleus derives from the Christian idea of an immaterial soul. Such an
idea is unacceptable to modern philosophers with materialist
orientations ... However, in the light of empirical results from
developmental psychology, developmental biology and neurosciences, the
idea of an essential inconstant, material nucleus … seems reasonable
.... The following conception is the most widely accepted: The 'self'
is not to be understood as an immutable, essential nucleus;rather, the
'self' is itself constantly changing ... In this respect, striking
similarities between some ideas of the modern philosophy of the mind
and traditional beliefs of non-European cultures (such as Buddhism)
come to light ...”. [59]
In
general:
Most of the authors do not point out the difference of the
actual Self and the strange Self, or the difference of the
core-Self and the relative Self (also-Self).
Also therefore, there are a lot of different definitions.
Further to the different definitions presented above:
Ad 1 – A definition of the Self is certainly a
matter of belief. But I believe that there is something
universal and objective behind the concept of the (actual)
Self. If, for instance, a person is convinced that he/she is
worthless on account of an illness, then the respective person
would be suffering from an inferiority complex which, in turn,
convinces this person to believe that he/she is worthless.
However, in reality, this person's value is equal to that of
all other individuals. This person is clearly wrong in their
beliefs. They believed in that which I termed the strange
Self.
Ad 2 – The term described in this definition is categorized as
'I' in this study.
Ad 3 – In this definition, the (actual) Self is clearly to be
regarded as cause and purpose. This definition is very similar
to Aristotle's concept of entelechy, meaning that there is
something within us, “which has its own purpose within
itself.” (Schischkoff, KW `Entelechie´.)
If this metaphysical reality transcends the individual
person and yet envelops him or her in a loving manner, then this
would appear to be the best self-definition. However, if “maturing,
differentiation and self-realization” have to be accomplished
primarily by the person themselves, then these are, in my view,
rather functions of the 'I'. This, in turn, would merely identify a
part of the Self (the relative Self) would be described, not the
nucleus of the actual Self which is effective by itself.
I, for one, wish my children a stable sense of
self-worth, whether or not they have reached their full potential,
stagnated in their maturation or personal development, or even
regressed to a previous state - and don't we all have this adverse
experience?
A Self dependent on any progress, however, would be subject to
constant fluctuations, which would permanently endanger the person.
Ad 4-6 – The Self of Kernberg is also a limited, weak Self.
In my opinion, it would merely be the sum of numerous strange
Selves. The actual Self however provides the humans with a sense of an
actual Self. This Self encompasses the entire breadth of an
individual's life, thus giving the person identity, dignity and
strength, regardless of all people or an individual's own conscience.
Ad 7 and 8 – While these are clearly definitions of the whole-Self,
they do not distinguish between the nuclear Self and also-Self, nor do
they provide any information about an innate nuclear Self.
Ad 9 ‒ Thinking the Self as the immutable core of a person's being
corresponds, to a large extent, with my beliefs. However, this
definition describes solely the nuclear Self and does not take into
account that its deselection is possible. Much as we acknowledge that
the individual has absolute free choice of the Absolute in general, so
we should also concede that they have a free choice of the personal
Absolute, the Self - this means that we can confirm or reject the
positive absolute nuclear Self given by God1.
This can be an, at times unwitting, activity or attitude of the
absolute I-self-nucleus and would also mean that, having been given an
innate nuclear self, we also possess the innate option to confirm,
change or even reject the nuclear self. Thus, even the Self which we
obtain from God1 is
not imposed upon us but offered to us. I consider this to be a sign of
an unconditional love which neither leaves man to the necessary to
find himself, nor imposes a Self upon him.[61] It is also my belief that the innate, actual nuclear Self
urges the individual to further develop their personality, however it
does not make this by itself but requires our co-operation. Will the
actual nucleus (given by God1)
disappear whenever we are not growing? I believe that it can be
suppressed but that the actual nuclear Self is continuously active as
a discreet and caring companion, in such a way that we notice a
certain tension and feel challenged to courageously be ourselves.
It is good to know that, notably in the Christian conception, the
innate Self is inviolable, indivisible and even stronger than an
individual's active I. ((Further see in Self-strength
and Ego-strength).
This conception of an innate Self corresponds to the beliefs
upon which the universal human rights are based, expressly
ascribing in the preamble, an innate dignity, freedom and
equality with all others to every individual.
Therefore, in my opinion, there is an innate nuclear Self,
such as an innate dignity exists too. If it were otherwise,
every person would be easily manipulable.
Is there an immortal, eternal Self resp. I-self?
Is
there a constant Self or merely a Self that is temporary and
inconstant?
Academic psychology will deny the former, since it ultimately starts
from an atheistic position.
However, experience shows that, alongside our inconstant self-image,
we feel that we are always the same person. While I might feel
different from day to day or in various periods of life, nevertheless,
I have the impression that I am always myself, always Torsten
Oettinger and no other person. In my opinion, both of these
self-images persist alongside one another: on the one side, there is a
temporary, inconstant self-image, which corresponds to the relative
Self, and, on the other side, we have a constant, deeper self-image/
sense of Self that is equivalent to the nuclear Self. Reducing the
person or the Self to the relative Self (or its self-representations),
leads to the exclusion of the most important thing.
Contemporary psychology does not view the Self as an indivisible whole
but as an entity that consists of many self-representations (see
Kernberg). One might also say that a person is not thought to be an
individual (indivisible) but a 'dividual', one who is composed of
parts.
[One
of the exceptions: Luise Reddemann: "Würde - Annäherung an einen
vergessenen Wert in der Psychotherapie". Klett-Kotta, 2008.]
This view is not conducive to the treatment of mental illness,
especially schizophrenic psychosis, because it is based on a concept
in which the various, self-representations are not held together by a
larger whole, but have weak points and fault lines that leave the
affected person too exposed and broken. This can also affect groups,
families, or societies. In conclusion, one might say that if the
client is not granted a nuclear self resp. an absolute personal Self
but merely a conditional, relative Self, the client will be much more
unstable and vulnerable than a person who is conscious of their
unconditional, absolute and inviolable Self.
Therefore, the therapist's self-concept seems to be an essential factor
in psychotherapy.
Prevailing opinion in
psychology/psychiatry today.
The Self is:not innate, not immortal, destructible, dividable. It is made of many self-representations, that are not connected to each other by an indivisible whole. Those self-representations can be lost at any time. They, and the Self in general have to be maintained by making efforts. The self-image is equivalent to a relative attributive Self and does not know the characteristics, of the described core-Self. In my opinion, it is a weak, stressful self-image, that is not an ideal basis for psychotherapy. |
Christian image of Self
The core-Self is: innate, potentially immortal, not dividable, indestructible. It exists on its own, functions by itself and does not have to be constituted nor maintained by the I. Also, the person has the free choice supported the actual Self or to establish a new one. Since the person does not have to strive to sustain the self, it saves a lot of energy. It is much more suitable to be used for therapeutic purposes |
To me, the term 'self´
includes, in general, any use and meaning of the word 'self´ in
the colloquial language.
Self = anywhere, where one can say 'self'.
In order to limit the Self to the personal Self, which is our
topic, we can define as it as follows:
Wherever one can say 'self' in meaningful, person-related
sentences, it is a personal Self.
(When I speak of the Self in the following, I mean this personal
Self.)
I distinguish between an actual, first-rate Self (a) and those
which only appear thus so - the strange Selves (b).
Notes:
1. To make it easier to understand, I will usually identify the
whole actual Self (core-Self and also-Self) as 'Self' and name
other kinds of the Self differently. As said before: Nuclear
Self and core Self are the same in this publication.
2. The strange
Selves are explained in detail in the section
'Metapsychiatry'.
The issue of the Self of a person is above all an issue relating
to the identity of the human person and an issue relating to the
underlying Absolute or the underlying spirit.
That means that the image we have of ourselves tells us who we
are.
There are many questionable answers: You are what you have! You
are what you know! You are what you do! etc. And there are a lot
of questions: What is self-realization? What does it mean to
trust yourself? What is that kind of Self? Who am I?
As already
mentioned, the term 'self' is used to describe the actual,
first-rate, whole Self, unless indicated otherwise.
[62]
Similar to the description of the character of the
general Absolute (A), the character of the Self is absolute,
too.
It is the personal Absolute.
The Self also has 7 synonyms (2nd classification stage). The
Self is:
1- absolute, 2- identical with itself, 3- actual, 4- whole,
complete, 5- unconditional, 6- first-rate, 7- independent.
Question: What is a `core-Self´ and an `also-Self´? What is
absolute and what is relative?
1st answer: The `core-Self´ is exclusively
absolute, exclusively itself, exclusively actual, exclusively
whole, exclusively unconditional, exclusively first-rate and
exclusively independent. (You could also say: It is absolutely
absolute, absolutely itself, absolutely actual and so on.)
The `also-Self´ is also absolute, also itself, also actual, also
whole, also unconditional, also first-rate, and also
independent. But at the same time, it is also relative, also
different, also possible, also partial, also secondary and also
dependent.
2nd answer: The core-Self = In a sentence
where you can insert nothing but 'self' or one of its synonyms
(invariant).
Also-Self = Alongside the term 'self', you can also insert
another term without risking mutual exclusion.
Examples of the difference between core-Self
and also-Self = the absolute and relative dimension of P:
- I did not understand in the past when someone said: "I myself
have done this and that" - or similar. Then I thought, who else
than he did that? It was enough to say, "I have done this and
that." But it seems that people have an unconscious feeling that
the statement "I do this or that" does not clearly define the
subject 'I', as if there were many Egos in a person and one
correctly has to differentiates between a certain "I-self" and
other Egos, which obviously could not mean the I-self, but an
`I-also´ or a strange Ego. (Which corresponds to the conception
of this work.)
- One says: "I have arms, legs, a heart, I have a mind, a soul,
a spirit, character" and so on. I have all that and I am it,
too. But what I am exclusively? Where I am only myself and not
me, too?
I have assigned further characteristics of the Self to these 7
synonyms.
I mention them here in parentheses. The Self is:
1st absolute
2nd self (identical with itself, unique, exists on its own,
irreplaceable, unmistakable, individual)
3rd actual ( per se, true, real, definite)
4th whole (complete, inseparable, unrestricted, unlimited, one)
5th unconditional (in any case, constant, definite, existential)
6th first-rate (primary, centrical, fundamental, superior, most
important, determinant, ultimate, direct, primal.)
7th independent (autonomous, free, detached, indomitable but available
for choice, untouchable).
The Self as
the personal Absolute is spirit. It also permeates the personal
Relative, especially the soul but also the body, that therefore
become an also-Self. (→ Embodiment).
The Self is created through love.
(Strange-Selves have other origins). The Self itself is not
definable (such as is God1).
However, it is evident, believable, plausible and can be
experienced. One could say: It is defined by itself, it is
self-explaining. Or: It is defined by love / from God1.
I believe that especially parents have a natural feeling when
they attribute a Self to the newborn (sometimes unknowingly). To
me, it is hard to imagine that the newborn does not have a Self
yet, or that it has to fight for it first or may lose it at any
time. That only applies to the strange Selves or to the relative
Self.
The true Self is of divine origin and a gift that can be
accepted by the people. It is of divine and individual
origin. One could also say: It is the sphere
where God1 and
people are one; where the metapsychical and the psychical are
united.
The Self in psychology is usually equivalent to the also-Self
resp. relative Self that may also be called the attributive
Self. That means, to the Self something is assigned that is
making it a "Self". That way, it only has a relative character,
it is not constant, is not of a long duration and so on.
(For details see if necessary in the
German unabridged version.)
Amazingly similar conclusions about what the Self
is and what its function is, you see if you consider the
possibilities of the use of the term `self´: In the German
language, it is connected with the noun or personal pronoun.
Although it does not stand alone and grammatically leads rather
a shadowy existence, it has, at closer inspection, extraordinary
importance.
`Self´ stands for:
• Me and no other person resp. I myself
personally. (e.g.,“He said that himself.” “She has to choose by
herself.”) - which means it stands for irreplaceability,
individuality, uniqueness.
• Authority (e.g., “I decided that myself.”)
• Self also gives a person Identity (e.g., “I come to myself.”)
• 'Of one's own accord´ (e.g., “He does that by himself”) -
i.e., it stands for freedom.
• 'Effortlessly', 'automatically' (e.g.,“Something runs by
itself.”), i.e., it stands for autonomy, easiness.
• Integrity (e.g.,"He is the calm himself").
• `Self-evidence´ (e.g.,"It is self-evident").
• `Alone´ (e.g., „Only he alone can make it “ = „To be oneself")
- it stands for independence and individuality.
• Reflection (e.g.,"I come to myself") = i.e., it stands for
sense, identity.
• It stands for one´s own interest (e.g.,“I am doing this for
myself”.)
• Finally, 'self' is about 'free choice' (Fleischer). It has a
free position in a sentence and accompanies the
personal pronoun. Therefore it may be compared to a
faithful and discreet companion.
• The language also shows that the (actual) "self" cannot be
manipulated. It is sovereign.
• In the Greek language `self´ is called `autos' and means there
personally.
• Whenever we do or take something personally, it is related to
the Self.
• There is per se no plural form of self - so the language also
shows that there can be only one actual Self.[64]
A plea for an actual, original
Self - see unabridged German version.
- Every
human person is unique, irreplaceable, once-only and individual.
The Self gives a person identity. The Self is the actual and
unmistakable core of the person. Although you can speak
generally about the Self of a person and assign certain
characteristics to it, the single I-self or You-Self, however,
is unique and has its own identity if it is not strange.[65]
To put it in a religious way: We are all God's1
children but everyone is unique.
We have an identity due to our Self if that Self is actual. That
well-known answer to God1,
to the question: "Who are you?" “I am who I am”, also
applies to us, no matter who we are. Therefore, it is something
absolute, maybe even holy. It is of godly origin. We have the
same attitude towards our own children feel themselves. They are
always allowed to be true to themselves, they are always good
enough, they can always trust in their Self, they never have to
deny themselves. The above-named characteristics of the Self,
state in general that every one of us is unique but they cannot
define what exactly the individuality of every person is. Each
individual characteristic is given only by everybody´s I-self.
- The Self is the actual, vital, existential sphere of a person.
- It is the cause of the being and living of people. It is their
origin and foundation at the same time. It is also a goal; and
it is an answer to the question: “Why do I exist and live?”
- It is free and has autonomy. The Self is absolutely free in
its core-sphere and relatively free in the relative-sphere.
- It is potentially eternal = every human is created for
eternity.
- It is worthy of love and wants to be loved without
preconditions.[66]
- It is already there, basically inherent. It is for free, a
gift. You do not have to earn it or fight for it. The Self is
self-evident. But anything Relative is not self-evident.
- The Self is self-evident. But anything Relative is not
self-evident.
- In the beginning, you are not conscious about the Self.
However, one should learn to know one´s own Self and live out of
it.
- The Self is also made for self-protection.
- The most important signs of the Self are: “I am”, “I want to”,
and “I am free”, the preservation of the right to
self-determination, a life based on the voluntary principle. The
actual, first-rate life is based on it.
- God1/Love
is the key to the Self.
- The Self is in its core a last piece of the paradise within us
that we should keep and protect. Its core is beyond any kind of
earthly responsibility. It is beyond away from right or wrong
and good or bad. It is above conscience. It is in its core also
beyond anything that is relative and therefore from most of our
earthly problems. One can press it and suppress it but it is not
to be destroyed, as Hölderlin wrote, - unless the
particular person definitely does not want that self. Otherwise,
it cannot be killed.
- The Self is also the best basis for the integration of all
relative and strange things. So it integrates the wrong and the
relative evil, such as immoral, abnormal, sick, hardly
forgivable things, without being identified with them or being
influenced by them.
- The Self lives by itself in its core, therefore it is also
somewhat alone - separated from the Relative although it
permeates the Relative.
- The Self is unfathomable and cannot be challenged like the
Absolute, like love and like God1.
It is therefore only to be believed and not to be proved. It
does not need to be justified. (Religious: God1 loves
the man for his own sake).
- It is the personal, the resource/substance,[67] the child
(of God1)
within us.
- Self-confidence is the process of becoming aware of the actual
Self.
- The Self can be chosen by the I, like the Absolute but cannot
or does not have to be produced.
- The Self is independent of our actions and performance.
- One absolutely needs an Absolute, a Self. If one has no true
Absolute, a true Self, then he must "make" a Relative to a
(strange) Absolute, i.e. to a strange Self.
In summary, you can say that the Self has the function of giving
a person absoluteness and to be an absolute basis for the
relative sphere of a person.
What are the "disadvantages" of the Self
¹?
The Self is not conscious from the start.
You cannot enlarge it. You cannot create it. But you can choose
your own.
One cannot prove that this Self is "the right one", one can only
believe it.
A person with a Self does not have more worth than another.
These "disadvantages" are essential reasons for the Resistance
within us to live from this Self.
Brief differentiation of the actual Self and the strange Self:
Strange-Selves may also be called conditional, second-rate
Selves; or personal strange Pseudo-Absolutes.
They manifest, whenever a person sees something Relative as
absolute. Then another strange Absolute arises alongside the
actual Absolute, which may become a center where second-rate
realities accumulate. These are very important when it comes to
the emergence of mental disorders.
(Concerning
the strange-Self see esp. 'The
personal It and the strange Self´).
I
distinguish between personal and non-personal Relatives.
Concerning
the personal Relative:
a) actual personal Relatives
b) strange personal Relatives
c) absolutized Relatives within a person = strange Selves (sS).
About
a) The actual personal Relative (¹) has an actual Self as the basis.
It is also first-rate. It is an also-Self, a peripheral Self. The main
representative of the personal Relative is the body of a person. More
comprehensively, the personal Relative is mainly the dimension of
'something' (or 'it'): of things, objects, functionalities, materials,
parts of a person (physical and psychical).
The
actual personal Relative is less important than the core-Self and
depends on it.
About
b) The strange personal Relatives have strange Selves as a basis.
About
c) The absolutized personal Relative is called the strange Self (sS)
in the following sections. As mentioned, it plays an important role in
the emergence of mental disorders, as discussed in greater detail in 'The
personal It and the strange Self´.
In the opposite direction, the spirit is neither
dominated by the psyche nor by the body, however, it is influenced in
the form of conditional feedback. (Symbolized by the broken lines).
To put it very simply: a good spirit is interested in its soul and
body but one cannot manipulate the spirit.
In first-rate personal spheres spirit, soul
and body are neither separated from each other nor fused with
each other. They are a differentiated unity. In the second-rate
personal spheres however splittings and fusions occur.
First-rate, spirit and body appear to be two poles of a whole
(the human). The “pole” spirit is little structured but lighter,
more variable and flexible, whereas the “pole” body is more
structured, more firm and immovable.
The psyche has characteristics of both sides and is settled in
between but belongs more to the spirit, depending on how one
defines psyche.
To me, it seems very important to know,
especially for therapies, that the spiritual sphere does not
only have much more impact on the psyche than the body but also
that the spiritual sphere should be viewed as more independent
and variable. It should be the focus of therapeutic
interventions for personality changes.
Finally, it is also relevant, that changes that are created by a
good spirit, are basically free from side effects. But of
course, therapeutic approaches that focus on the
material-somatic sphere (especially psychotropic drugs) should
not be excluded. Indeed they are often the first and most
important measures, especially in acute situations. In the long
term, however, they result in a symptomatic, less sustainable
and less effective therapy with more side effects than therapy
with the primacy of the spirit.
It is a
concept of psychology and philosophy, which is defined and
described differently depending on the school.
In psychoanalysis mostly `Ego´. I use the term `Ego´ only
for the strange, second-rate I.
Otherwise I use the term "I" for every situation in which "I" is
used in everyday language.
Examples
from the relevant literature:
• “Term for the core of consciousness, the carrier of
self-awareness of the physical-psychical wholeness of a
person” (Schischkoff)
• “The itself self-aware origin and carrier of all
psychical actions (thinking, realizing, feeling, acting)
of an individual.”
• “In psychoanalysis, the Ego is an inner agent of the psyche
(next to Id and Superego), that helps with its conscious
ego-functions (perception, memory, thinking, planning, learning)
as well as with its unconscious ego-functions (defense
mechanisms), to mediate between the different requirements of
the outer world, sexual drives, the Id and the moral
requirements of the superego.”
• “In behavioristic theories - the total of all behaviors of an
individual.” [69]
a) The term 'I' has the same meaning as in common usage.
It stands for the individual person in its entirety, who speaks of
itself in the role of the subject. That is, the term 'I' as a personal
pronoun means everything that I can say about myself. The emphasis is
on the active part of the personality, its role as a subject (I act, I
perceive, I feel, etc.).
b) 'The I´ resp. `the Ego' as an object (for example, the I as a
subject becomes the object of psychological examinations) - but then,
in contrast to `a', it is possible to say: someone examines me.
I distinguish:
a)
the actual I
b)
the strange I (= Ego)
c)
the Non-Ego
To a) The actual I stands for a person, that has an
actual Self as the basis. It is equivalent to an I-self, or else
synonymously: first-rate I = I¹.
This term not only includes the first-rate absolute dimension
but also the relative dimension of the I.
The term `Only-I-self´ includes only the absolute sphere of the
I, its individual unique core of being, that also distinguishes
it from other people.
The relative sphere of the I-self, which could be called the `
Also- I-self´, expresses parts of me (my body, my mind, etc.) or
similarities with other people. (“I am also like you”.)
Structure of
the actual, first-rate I:
(IA and GA means IA = Absolute choice of the I. GA = God's absolute love.)
To b) The strange-I
= I² or Ego. Their main
feature is that these parts are controlled by strange Selves
(sS). [70]
To c) 'Non-Ego'=
I°. (For
details see Genesis of the
Nothingness later).
Important: The normal human being, represented by the personal
pronoun 'I', is made of its own, actual I-self-part and
strange-I-parts (resp. Ego-parts), that overlay the actual
I-self. The Egos are vulnerable and destructible but not the
core of the actual I-self, even though this may be overlaid by
Ego parts. That fact is very important for the therapeutic
attitude.
The I needs an absolute basis. The basis may be either the
actual Absolute or just an alleged, strange Absolute. So, the
basis can either be the Self itself or alternatively a strange
Self.
The I is too weak by itself, too incomplete and (except the
`absolute-choice´) too relative, to be an entire, undivided
I-self.
The I chooses its Absolute(s) (possibly unconsciously or
intuitively). In this way, its Relatives are also determined. If
the I chooses the actual +A, the I stays the actual I. It
remains I-self. The only if the I chooses +A, then it is strong
enough to prevent it from being dominated by absolutized
Relatives, that is, by strange Pseudo-Absolutes.
If the I chooses a Relative (R) as its Absolute, then a strange
Pseudo-Absolute (sA) with strange Self (sS) arises and on the
basis of it a strange I (Ego) arises. Then, in addition to the
actual I, a (or several) strange Ego(s) emerge.
Thus, the I can be actual and first-rate or can be an Ego, which
operates on the basis of a strange Self. The I can thus be an
I-self or a strange I (Ego) or also a "Non-Ego". In the last two
cases, I do something but what I am doing does not correspond to
my real intentions, not to what I myself really want. In my
opinion, this situation, which is the result of `inversions´, is
the most important basis for the emergence of mental disorders.
(See later in 'Psychiatry').
I will only briefly look at this topic since the
differentiations of the psyche/ person were already described in
greater detail earlier and they are very similar. (→ General Differentiations)
Concerning the main differentiations, it is mainly about:
I. Forms of being of the I (my forms of
being).
II. Forms and manifestations of life of the I
(my life-forms and manifestations).
III. Qualities of the I (my qualities and
characteristics).
IV. The I as a subject, object and in
contexts (predicate).
As mentioned, I am guided by the words of
everyday speech and not by the psychoanalytical or
behavioral-therapeutic definitions of the I. That is, everything is
said after "I ..." or "My ...",
I count to the I-sphere.
And everything where you say 'I myself' is only part of the I-self
area.
Classification of the I
|
|
DIMENSIONS
|
|
Areas Absolute (A) =
Self
Relative (R)
0
|
A = Self of the I (my Self) A-core of the I (Only I myself) - A-attitude of I (AI) (absolute point of self-determination) - God in the self area of I (GA) (God in me) R = Exterior-A of I = Something of the I [When I¹ that is also I myself] 0² (zero area, Non-I) [Only at I²] |
7 Synonyms |
(here only
first-rate) my Absolute / Relatives my identity / differences my reality / possibilities my unity / diversity my security / freedom my causes / results my independence / refuge |
Ranks
1. 2. 0 |
I-self
= I¹ strange-I = I² = Ego Non-I = I° |
Orientations
+ − 0 |
pro
+ I / Ego contra ‒ I / Ego 0 I / Ego |
DIFFERENTIATIONS |
|
Main
aspects
B L Q C |
Being forms of the I (my being) Life forms of the I (my life) Qualities of the I (my qualities) Contexts of the I: I as a subject / I as a object |
Units ∀/N G/W P/Th I / Others |
my All or something or nothing my God and my world my representations of persons and things my representations of myself and others |
further aspects
|
e.g., my spirit, my body, my "states", my activities, my information, my skill, my duties etc. |
SELF |
I |
||
The Absolute, cause, basis, `essence´... of a person. Symbolized by the heart. Can only be believed. Has in particular a spiritual dimension. Although it has basic effects, it does not act as I. A person is rather not conscious of the Self. Declination (Inflection) is not possible. |
Personal pronouns = that which is in the place of
nouns (the name, a declinable word - here the individual person). Symbolized by the head (and body). Can be known and proven. Has more physical and psychical dimensions than the Self . Is predominately an acting subject. The I is more conscious than the Self. Declinations (Inflections) are possible. |
||
actual Self (=
first-rate Self) actual, positive cause. It forms a unit with actual I. Is eternal, unassailable, etc. Declination (Inflection) is not possible. |
strange-SELF (sS) second-rate, strange basis. |
actual, first-rate I (I¹) The I is based on the actual Self = I-self. |
strange-I
(Ego) The I is based as Ego on a second-rate, strange Self. Non-I (I°) |
Religious View
The I and
the Self are connected but not identical. I and Self are a
whole if the Self is quasi-divine.
The I-self and God1
are then one, without loss of identity or individuality. One
could also say: The I has its roots in the Self and the Self
in God1 -
and myself. The I finds most of its strength, its inner peace,
indeed the possibility of fulfillment of all aspects of life
in the actual Self, in God1.
But man must confirm the actual Self that he wants it. As
said, therefore, the I is entirely absolute when it comes to
the decision of affirming or declining the actual Self - so,
for or against God1-
or “the good principle”. But only there. (For details, see section: "The
absolute attitude"
of the I"). Besides that aspect, the I
cannot be absolute without disorders occurring. In that case,
it would try to be its own Self, its own God1 and
would be unable to cope.
But the actual Self can integrate all I-types
- no matter how the I is: Whether it is right or wrong,
responsible or irresponsible, whether it is healthy or
ill, successful or inefficient, also whether it is based
on a strange Self (!) or not,
the person may always be identical, may feel
worthy and well.
The I-self is always worth the same and basically
identical to itself because it is not determined by a
Relative. We cannot raise the value of the
I-self and also do not have to do so. What the I-self is doing
has ultimately only relative importance. The I-self is by no
means free of errors. The person who lives their Self may also
make more mistakes than others, the Self (God1)
will compensate for everything. The breath of life that is
provided by the actual Self is almost unlimited. It is only in
the case of the above mentioned absolute decision for absolute
evil that the person loses itself.
I, Self and something (of me) are all connected to
each other. They form an undivided wholeness in the first-rate
personal.
The I is rooted in the Self. I and Self form the I-self. My
'somethings' are like relative part(s) of the I-self. The
structure of the psyche can be compared to a tree: The tree has
roots, that form the basis (the Self), it has leaves (something)
- and the whole thing is the tree (I-self). The concept of the
I-self involves the something like the concept of the tree
involves foliage. However, the term leaves does not include the
tree but a tree remains a tree without the leaves. So, the term
'something' does not enclose the I-self but conversely the
I-self remains the I-self even without the something.
So, the I can have an actual Self as a basis or as roots but it
can also be based on a strange Self. Then it is like a tree with
strange roots. It is a hybrid, a hermaphrodite, or a mongrel.
The individual is not in-dividual (indivisible) anymore but
`dividual´ (divisible). Its I is a strange-I, based on a strange
Self.
In the best case, when the I is based on the actual +Self, it is
identical to itself and integrates whatever is personally
relative (the something). The I-self can integrate (all)
something(s), everything that is relative even if it is wrongly
absolutized, without being identical. The following icon shows
the first-rate status of the Self towards the something.
I postulate
that mental disorders can arise by inverting the roles of the
Self and any something. Then the actual Self becomes some kind
of something and something becomes a kind of a Self - a strange
Self. It is about: Who dominates? Do I have something, or does
something have me? In other words: Am I I (and also something),
or am I mainly something and only a little bit of the I? (In the
latter case I call the dominant something the `It'.)
Concerning mental disorders, the absolute-sphere of a person,
the Self, is deranged. That is why the protection and the
strengthening of the Self should be mainly focused on.
The conflict dynamism mainly occurs between the I, based on a
Self and the I-parts, based on strange-Selves.
There are parallels to the general dynamics of the human person
between the Absolute and the Relative or, in other words: It
shows the human caught between heaven, earth and hell.
Synonyms: absolute I-Self with the absolute basic or
existential attitude/will, absolute point of decision, highest
absolute responsibility of the I and the absolute right of self-determination.
Short: IA, PA. In the positive case: primary virtue, Good
will in principle.
This `absolute attitude of the I´ is similar to the
'absolute I' of Johann Gottlieb Fichte and the `absolute spirit´of
Hegel but not identical to both.
This
absolute I-Self cancels the object-subject opposition but
distinguishes both and gives priority to the subject.
The center point of the I-self and thus of the person is
constituted by an absolute decision point for + A
or for −A on the
basis of an inviolable dignity and an unconditional right of
self-determination.
[As a completely independent center of a person or an individual, it only corresponds to a "pure" absolute personal / individual subject, because otherwise person and individual are more or less subject and object at the same time. See also terms `subjectoid´ and `objectoid´ as terms of second-rate subjects or objects].
In this point, the highest or the most actual
absolute of a person is directly confronted with the opposite
actual Absolute (+A # ‒A). I already mentioned the following
actual Absolutes: God1,
as the positive Absolute (+A)
[71] on the one side, the negative Absolute
(‒A) on the other side and the free attitude/ will of a person
toward those. [72]
I think at least in this point, the person is completely itself
and completely free. That means that the I only has an absolute
relevance when it comes to the absolute, existential decision of
choosing the absolute good or the absolute evil. I see here,
such as Kierkegaard, Herder and others, the person in an
absolute free attitude towards
the Absolute (which must not be a
conscious decision!).[73]
The choice of +A or ‒A is an existential right of
self-determination of humans. Freud may have thought with the
distinction of `libido´ and `destrudo´ (destructive instinct) in
a similar direction. (Goethe saw, on the other hand, the
fundamental conflict of man in the "conflict between unbelief
and faith".)
Those are only hypotheses, that perhaps appear irrelevant. But
in the positive case, as I will explain later, this decision is
the "only one" prerequisite for the acceptance of a fundamental,
positive, absolute Self. The
existence of an absolute decision-making point is also important
because I believe that love, or God1 leaves
us this free choice and does not determine deterministically,
which are the "good" and the "evil" humans and the individual
stands on this point on the same level as God1 and
can in principle (!) want the good (+A) or the evil (‒A).
If a person is fundamentally (!) well-intentioned, then, in my
understanding, he has decided on an absolutely positive,
indestructible (core) Self. All of these people, I believe, go
to “heaven” whether they are religious or not. However, if a
person fundamentally and irrevocably wants the absolute evil,
then I believe that leads to his own destruction (the so-called
"mortal sin").[74] (See also `Right
and wrong´.)
Other
choices
In all other cases, the I has only relative options and makes
only relative decisions. This has a favorable and an unfavorable
side. Favorable is that I have to meet, even in an absolute
sense, only one (perhaps unconscious) decision, to feel
basically free and redeemed. This gives the person freedom and
relief! I have not to do anything.[75]
The "unfavorable" side is: I cannot redeem myself
or increase my value through certain actions. Since the
I is only relative (besides the absolute decision), it can
become a strange Self. The I-self then alienates from itself.
A free absolute or relative will should
not be confused with a will which is determined by a strange Absolute
and which forces us to want to do something that we actually do not
want. ("Protect me from what I want!").
(→
Obsessive-compulsive disorder)
The described choices are similar to the theses of the standpoint theories. However, those only mark relative (earthly) standpoints, whereas I assume the possibility of the existence of an absolute standpoint.
"Primary and Secondary
Virtues"/ Relativity of Morality?
"The secondary virtues included in particular diligence, loyalty,
obedience, discipline, sense of duty, punctuality, reliability,
orderliness, politeness, cleanliness, and so on. mostly from the catalog
of Prussian virtues ... Instead, [later] post-materialistic values such
as humanity, creativity, and self-realization were emphasized ...
Immanuel Kant allows only one primary virtue to be valid: `There is
everywhere nothing possible to think of in the world, indeed even apart
from it, which could be considered good without qualification, but a
good will alone.' If this were lacking, all other virtues could `also
become extremely evil and harmful."
[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardinaltugend 1/2012]
Similar to Kant and Kierkegaard, I believe, it is primarily a matter of
the person's conscious or unconscious absolute will (or attitude) toward
the absolute, in the sense of a basic attitude toward absolute good or
evil (→ absolute basic attitude), which in this work I call, in the
positive case, principled goodwill. In this sense, questions of morality
would be subordinated to this "primary virtue" and, in contrast (!), of
relative importance.
In my opinion, a distinction between situational (relative) will and a
principled existential will as an attitude towards life would also make
sense.
For me, the "primary virtue" in this sense would be a primarily positive
will/attitude toward the good.
(→
Good will)
A choice of literature
• “The principle of individuation[...] generally
describes the way, in which a thing finds identity, that
distinguishes itself from others. The concept […] can be found
in publications by Carl Jung, Gilbert Simondon, Bernard
Stiegler, Friedrich Nietsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, David Bohm,
Henri Bergson, Gilles Deleuze and Manuel De Landa …”[76]
• “In Jungian psychology, also called analytical
psychology, `individuation´ names the process in which the individual
self develops out of an undifferentiated unconscious - seen as a
developmental psychic process during which innate elements of
personality, the components of the immature psyche, and the
experiences of the person's life become integrated over time into a
well-functioning whole." [77]
“Jung regarded the process of individuation as a lifelong,
incomplete process with a steady approximation to a 'distant
goal': the Self. … The person is always being asked to actively
confront itself with problems occurring throughout the way of
its individuation and to take responsibility for the decisions
of the Self. Individuation means, not to follow 'what someone
should do' or 'what would be generally right' but to listen to
ones Self, to realize what the inner wholeness (the Self) wants
to achieve 'with me or through me' in that certain situation." [78]
• Example for a sociological concept: Bernard Stiegler, who
considers "the
psychical individuation always as a collective process."[79]
Individuation
in the sense of the above is, of course, a very important
process of personal self-development. In my opinion, it will be
best to succeed if it takes place on the basis of a personal
Absolute, which not only has to be constituted by the individual
himself but already exists from the outset. This primary Absolute, this primary innate Self is
rarely considered in the literature. But in fact, it corresponds
to human experience, as reflected for instance in the universal
human rights or in love relationships. There, the individuation
is subordinated to an already existent absolute self-being, a
first-rate dignity, freedom and uniqueness of the human.
In the first place is not the "becoming" but "being" and the
"you are already !" An already existing absolute individuality
is assumed thus and superordinated to the individuation. This
innate, absolute individuality and identity does the person
concerned not have to establish.
This is it which has unconditional, vital meaning, not the
mentioned above individuation-processes, no matter how important
they might be. However, if the latter are of absolute
importance, we are fundamentally overstrained because the
individual should always be on the way to find and reach the
"ultimate goal" (as described by C. Jung) to feel identical with
himself. (Maybe many people with identity disturbances, like
above all schizophrenic patients have resigned and have given up
the fight for such a self-becoming or have never got to know
that primary absolute innate Self). Though, the absolute,
inherent individuality does not convey the illusion of a feeling
of total being identical to the Self but more
realistically, the feeling of a fundamental deep and
undestroyable self-being, which is the best requirement for
individuation.
An absolute, actual individuality and identity of a person is
not provable. It is an apriori. Only relative identity - what
you also are, or what you make of yourself - is provable. One
should maybe say it as God1 does:
“I am, who I am”, or: “I do not have to become different. I
might even regress, without losing myself.”
PS: As already mentioned, a newborn would not have any
individuality without an inherent Self. However, with that Self,
every newborn is already born as unique, irreplaceable,
individual, endearing personality.
According to my theory individuation is a process with relative
importance. The person is in the core-Self from another people
totally different, whereas the relative self-areas
displays similarities with other people. This theory shows the
person neither as completely different from other people nor as
a collective product but also integrates both concepts. (See also “The journey is the destination” in
Buddhism).
How does the
concrete person present himself in this context?
Looking at the analysis of language, you could say: What the
person concerned says about himself and the world, or what
others say about him gives the most concrete conclusions about
the person concerned.
The most important is, what is of absolute relevance for the
person.
This is recognizable again in absolute statements in sentences
or words.
(See
also `How are inversions expressed?(Linguistic
Analysis)´.
Thus it is likely that a person who uses, for example, often
formulations like „I must absolutely" or "I may not", if
relative needs are absolutized (Asp.11) or if another expresses
that his life aim consists in becoming once a millionaire, or if
ownership (asp. 9) will be absolutized.
In this respect, an individual language analysis brings
important clues to the psychological situation of the person
concerned, as indeed in practice, usually what the person says
about himself or what is said about him, is the most important
source for the assessment of an individual. However, the
thinking and the spoken words do not always match, so that such
an analysis of speech has to be viewed as imperfect since the
Absolute often cannot be absolute defined. But I believe that
the present concept for diagnostic purposes is also very
suitable, although this is not the main intention of this
script. In this case, it would be the primary task to consider
the respective individual Absolutes of the person, as I have
tried to express in the sketchy sentences of Hölderlin at the
end of the part `Metapsychiatry' in the unabridged German
script.
I define metapsychiatry as a theory which reflects
on psychiatric topics from higher points of view.
These are above all worldview standpoints. Therefore, one could
also speak of `philosophy of psychiatry'.
However, metapsychiatry also includes sociological,
psychological, neurological, biological and language spheres
since these also deal with important psychiatric and
psychological issues.
[Note: The term “metapsychiatry” is used with slightly different
connotations in American English. That meaning is rarely used in
German.][80]
While metapsychology focuses on things that are
important to our soul, metapsychiatry focuses on what of those
matters can make us mentally ill and how that happens, resp.
which of the psychical relevant matters are pathogenic or
“sick” themselves. Generally speaking: Metapsychiatry is about
everything that has to do with mental illnesses.
Since the causes of mental disorders may be in person or
environment, a metapsychiatric view is indispensable about
this topic. We may be affected by positive or negative,
healthy or morbid factors in our surroundings, in our fellows
and even in nature, which is often not taken into
consideration. Therefore, usual psychoanalysis and
psychotherapy can become one-sided.
I reflect on this area from (general) linguistic,
existential-philosophical and religious-scientific
perspectives.
Their common theme at issue here is what I call "the strange
psychological Relevant" or "strange, second-rate realities",
which include mental illnesses, too.
I
hypothesize that `inversions´ of basic or fundamental meanings (absolute,
relative, nothing and their synonyms) are the main causes of the
emergence of these strange realities and thus mental disorders.
I repeat: `Fundamental meanings´ (dimensions) means that it is about primordial meanings, about most fundamental, very first meanings of existence, behind which one cannot go back, which are not further questionable, but at most credible, and which grasp every psychically relevant thing in its respective most fundamental meaning. Thereby the Absolute has the meaning of the very first, primary causes, to which all other causes can be traced back in the end. Therefore I try to reflect possible causes of mental illnesses from this last reason.
Such reversals of basic meanings arise, above all, by
attitudes that make a claim to absoluteness that excludes other
attitudes. `Isms´ or ideologies are typical examples of this.[81]
The ideologies are only a well-known example of
at least as important dogmatic and pathogenic attitudes in
families or individuals - or for those who lack fundamental
orientations at all.
I will explain this in greater detail in the following
paragraphs.
Since the causes of mental disorders may be in person or
environment, the metapsychiatric view is indispensable about
this topic.
We may be affected by positive or negative, healthy or morbid
factors in our surroundings, in our fellows and even in nature,
which might cause our health to improve or decline, which is
often not taken into consideration. Therefore, usual
psychoanalysis and psychotherapy will tend to become rather
one-sided.
In this section of 'metapsychiatry', I will discuss the
following topics:
1. The `inversion´: The affected person confuses a real
Absolute(s) with another matter.
2. In a second step, I describe how this creates a strange,
dominant entity that I call "It."
Then, I will explain how this `It´ develops its own dynamic,
transforming reality and people.
3. Further, I will show how these `Its´ unite to form bigger
complexes and which role they have with regard to the
pathogenesis of mental disorders (e.g., "It makes me sick!").
The most commonly used terms and abbreviations here
A = The Absolute (if not otherwise
indicated, it is the first-rate
Absolute/ A¹)
R
= The Relative
W = World
resp.
reality; P
= Person; I
= I (WPI)
sA = strange Absolute
sS
= strange Self (the personal sA)[82]
∀ = 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.
Hypothesis: Inversions generate strange,
second-rank realities, which, in turn, are the most important
basis for the emergence of mental disorders. These inversions
have their origins, above all, in ideologies or individual
dogmatized attitudes. Inversion means confusion of fundamental
meanings, especially of the Absolute (A) and Relative (R). A
Relative thereby becomes a strange Absolute (sA) and the
Absolute becomes strange nothingness (s0).
These sA and s0 create together a new, dominant entity that I
call 'It'.
These Its produce strange (second-rate) realities - which form
the basis of mental disorders. [83]
Inversions and their effects may appear in an individual as well as in
a social setting. While it is obvious that both spheres are
interconnected, showing similar characteristics and dynamics, this
study will primarily investigate the personal area, since this
publication, our focus is on mental disorders.
Mental disorders emerge whenever a complex in a person (a combination
of personal Its) has reached particular characteristics and a certain
extent. Of course, complexes found in society or an individual's
environment may cause mental illness as well - however, to do so, they
need to first be internalized and personalized.
Following the logic of this argumentation, primary causes of pr
changes/ disorders and thus also mental disorders will ultimately (!)
need to be sought in an Absolute. All other causes are necessarily
second-rate - these are causes that are results of other causes.
Therefore, the pathogenesis of mental disorders originally begins
mostly with the patient's attitude to an Absolute and finally leads to
disorders, of which some are mental disorders. This is a very
interesting and complicated process that will be discussed briefly in
the following section.
The usual inversion has two parts, which are inextricably
linked:
1) The absolutization of a Relative (R)
2) The negation of an actual Absolute (A¹).
To 1) {Note: For the sake of simplicity, the
`Relative´ stands in this publication for everything,
which is not an Absolute.)
By an inversion, something Relative is made absolute,
and can establish a strange Absolute (sA). Instead of the
primacy of the Absolute and the subordination of the Relative
(R), the Relative wins by the inversion the upper hand about
the Absolute. As sA, the newly absolutized Relative displays
very different characteristics than that which was originally
purely Relative: on the one hand, it is inherently relative,
on the other hand, it has some absolute traits since it is
absolutized. Thereby, a strange new entity is created within
reality or a person which is autonomous and dominant.
In the next step, this new sA constitutes a system of
domination. As a new Absolute, it has the power to subdue other
Relatives. It cut them off the influence of the actual A. Thus
it forms a system as a new strange Absolute (sA) with
subordinated Relatives. Regarding the person: The new sA
subordinates and changed the person in the area in which it
prevails.
We shall see later that this dominance of the sA about the
person is not purely negative but also positive. This fact plays
an important role in understanding mental disorders.
To 2) The establishment of this sA-system is accompanied by a
negation of these three actual Absolutes: 1. The + A, 2. the ‒A,
3. the personal `absolute attitude'. (More on that later.) Thus,
the corresponding actual world/reality/personality is lost.
Thereby,
however, the process is not completed. Since every new sA
also becomes an opposite to an actual A (or to another
sA), the Absolutes enter into a struggle for supremacy in
the respective spheres of reality or person. This means
that we are often exposed to very diverse contradictions
and tensions, which are based on various Absolutes.
Sometimes a sA may be fighting another sA but, sometimes
it is making pacts with others sA, too - however, every sA
will fall into opposition and contradiction to the actual
Absolutes.[84]
At the same time, every sA or It is divided within itself and
paradoxical. While the inversions persist, these confrontations
will persist. It is for this reason that the world/ the person
is unable to find peace and prone to develop mental disorders.
We return to the hypothesis that a great
number of different inner and outer worlds/realities exist: an
actual world and many, strange, second-rate worlds,[85] and
we find that all these worlds have absolute and relative (AR-)
dimensions and consist of the 4 main aspects (BLQC) resp. of 23
individual aspects regarding the `Differentiations´
. These different worlds are determined by their
respective Absolutes, which form center and basis for the
relative areas dependent on them. How we live, whether we are
healthy or sick, will depend on such external and internal
worlds/realities. But since an A always governs these
worlds/realities, one might say that, first and foremost, our
lives depend on these A. For an individual, the Absolutes in
his/ her inner world have a direct, definitive influence,
whereas the external world (environment) has a more
indirect influence on the person. In this respect, the
question is important how the person can shield their internal
world against a pathogenic environment. Fortunately, the
first-rate world is stronger than the strange worlds/ realities
in the long term. As said: While the first-rate world is guided
by A, the strange worlds are dominated by strange Absolutes. We
will see below that the restoration (`religio´) of the dominant
position of the actual A is an essential objective of therapy.
Acquiring an understanding of the causes and nature of mental disorders may be difficult for the following reasons:
• The person is embedded in relationships and contexts and
that´s why illness may have causes that are exterior to the
individual.
• Causes of illness can have impacts for other people and not for the
polluter himself.
• Inversions can cause many, not just mental disorders.
• The causes of mental disorders are often hidden, indirect and very
complex.
• The affected is often not aware of the actual causes of mental
disorders.
• Every inversion diversifies resp. spreads in such a way that it can
cause many different disorders, and on the other hand one disorder can
be generated by many different inversions.
• The negative may not have only negative impacts, and the positive
may have negative impacts. That´s why the positive can also be a cause
of mental disorders.
• Often, subjective experience and objective facts are not
identical:
This means that disorders might be experienced
positive and health negative. But in an objective view, too, illnesses
are also not absolutely negative and health not absolutely positive.
• Disorders or their causes may also be considered to be positive by
society and therefore encouraged (e.g. workaholism).
Now I
will exactly explain in the following paragraphs:
1. The `inversion´.
2. I describe how the inversion creates the strange, dominant entity
that I call `It´ and how this `It´ changes reality and people.
3. I show how these `Its´ unite to form bigger complexes and which
role they have concerning the pathogenesis of mental disorders.
By `inversion' I mean
the confusion of the dimensions of existence. (See Dimensions).
[For
'inversions'
one could also use: mistake or mix-up.]
To denote the dimensions I use the terms 'absolute', 'relative' and
'nothing'. (Guiding terms).
These indicate rank (hierarchy) and fundamental meaning of the
different forms of existence.
[`Fundamental´
means every psychical relevant with its most important,
fundamental meaning.]
Inversions
lead to the formation of strange entities (`Its´), which in turn
generate strange, "wrong" realities (W²),
like
psychical illnesses.
Similar definitions:
- Inversions: Confusions
of fundamental meanings, rankings, orders, hierarchies.
- Inversion = ideologizations which are dominant in the
affected person and connected to a denial of actual
Absolutes.
- In religious terms: Inversions arise because God and the Self are replaced by
something other.
In other words: Inversions always lead to a loss of God
and the Self.
To some terms
Reversals = Results of inversions.
It is not only the universal topics of humanity but
also daily issues and worries such as illnesses, problems with
our partners or children, success and failure, money or no money
- all these subjects may invade the absolute-sphere and
therefore acquire existential relevance. Inversions may be
quickly changed, or they may last for a lifetime like a mindset
that may be found in societies or families for several
generations.
The range of possible inversion is nearly unlimited. I shall
systematize them in a later section.
The common denominator of all these behavior patterns (or
rather, of their underlying attitudes) is the affected person's
subordination to a strange Absolute and their negation of that
which is the actual Absolute.
Existential attitudes, opinions, and beliefs are
generally “located” in the absolute sphere of the person.
Concrete behaviors depend upon them and are therefore relative
in comparison to them. Thus, it is not possible to draw
completely safe conclusions from concrete behaviors about
primary attitudes.
In association with that topic, I also want to draw focus on the
difference of a relative and an absolutely taken personal trait:
A relative one is relativized by a higher positive Absolute ( A,
God1)
- an absolute not. Example: I can be scrupled, without it
determining me.
On the distinction between inversion and sin, I would
briefly like to say that inversion is more comprehensive than sin and
the affected is often unaware of its presence. Sin is commonly
understood with an act of conscious, free will, as a violation of the
ten commandments.
It is possible to have inversions without sinning.
Objectively, sin, as well as inversion, are of relative importance;
subjectively, however, they are frequently of absolute importance.
Inversion is by no means the negative or even evil, rather something
subordinate (second to penultimate), which often acts as an emergency
solution despite all the disadvantages.
Freud’s
concept
of repression corresponds, in part, to the concept of inversion,
provided the definition involves the replacement of that which is
Absolute by that which is a Relative. According to the psychoanalytic
conception, the repressed Absolute would then recede to the
subconscious.
A
more extensive discussion of differences between Freud´s theory of
repression and my analysis can be found in the unabridged German
version.
The absolutization of something / someone is
always automatically accompanied by an absolutization of the
polar opposite and a negation. This means that with each
strange Absolute, the relevant contrary and adversary
opposites emerge - often only existing latently. I call the
complexes thus formed 'It', which will be discussed later (→ It). Every inversion may so lead to the
genesis of its polar opposites, dilemmas, paradoxes.
(See e.g., Ambivalent and paradoxical reactions.)
The emergence of opposites also goes hand
in hand with the emergence of fusions (mergers) and negation.
Likewise, fusions generate opposites and negations as well as
negations promoting opposites and fusions. (→ e.g., Interplay of opposing philosophies and forms
of societies.) In my opinion, the literature of this theme (KW
`dialectics') looks only at the dynamics of opposites and
not at the simultaneous emergence of fusions and negations.
a)
Individual inversions: The inversions or ideologizations
primarily arise in the absolute sphere of a person. Their effects can
be found both in the spiritual and psychological sphere as well as in
material and somatic spheres.
The material and somatic changes can be secondary causes for further
changes. However, the primacy of spiritual causation cannot better be
proved than the primacy of material causation.
b) Societal inversions: The inversions affect not only
individuals but also groups or whole societies.
Here, they can be found, above all, as different ideologies or `isms´,
as well as in countless attitudes and convictions which evolve in
small groups such as families. Globally, they are detected in social
strata and societies, in successive generations, in the mainstream as
much as in more marginal worldviews and ideologies.
In the following chapters, the character of ideologies, their `Its´
and effects will be described. These ideologies are not only negative
and have positive sides but in the long term, they always prove more
or less oppressive, require sacrifices, exclude others and are
potentially pathogenic.
A Relative (R) becomes an
Absolute (A) and an Absolute (A) becomes a Relative (R)
or 0.
Both are connected and form an It.
In due to inversion R will grow more important than A,
whereas A will become less important than R or
turning into 0.
The graphics illustrate inversions,
concerning different aspects of the dimensions involved. In
essence, it is the same process that is portrayed in diverse
ways. From left to right:
a) To the left, we can see how A loses its position in the
center, whereas the Relative takes the former's place in
the center.
b) A Relative becomes dominant over the Absolute. In the sphere
of a person: R
becomes superior to P.
c) The Absolute is no longer regarded to be fundamental, whereas
the Relative is regarded to be fundamental.
d) The Absolute is no longer thought to be first-rate but
second-rate, whereas the Relative becomes first-rate.
e) The Absolute is no longer believed to be comprehensive,
whereas the Relative is deemed to be comprehensive.
Everywhere there are "displacements" of the center and
"breakages" between the first-rate starting point and the new
strange situation.
Grammatical and syntactical analogies remind us of
the hypothesis that aspects of psyche have to do by that which
is represented in nouns, verbs and adjectives[88] - i.e. "structures" (forms),
"movement" and "qualities "; while psychical interconnections
are expressed by syntax, by that which subjects and predicates
represent.
One can examine the changes in the "structures" (forms),
"movement", "qualities" and interconnections are caused by the
inversions.
Translating the steps previously mentioned into these linguistic
analogies, one might say:
In a first step, a person, who is a primary subject, makes an
object (the Relative) to a primary subject; thereby becoming
himself an object. As an object the affected person can merely
act as a secondary or second-rate subject (syntactic analysis).
Another analogy to grammar lies in the fact that the subject
forces the object into a certain form by the aid of a verb as
predicate. “The verb dominates the object.“ (W. Jung) [89].
The `Summary table´ essentially follows this
classification. For a more detailed analysis, please see the
unabridged German version.
Often, inversions are not immediately recognized in
every-day life, particularly since they might appear in
different forms and modes of expression. Inversions emerge from
certain attitudes and are expressed in very diverse ways: in
specific patterns of behavior, ways of thinking and speaking,
etc. Most clearly, inversions express themselves in the language
which is employed in communication. Since inversions invariably
affect the absolute sphere, they can be revealed in the inadequate
use of following absolute words or absolute statements,
like:
• Absolute nouns (= being): God, devil, idol,
saints and the sacred, or nominalized absolute adjectives.
• Absolute verbs of action (= actions, behavior) like: to adore,
idolize, hate, swear, curse, dogmatize, ideologize, etc.
• Absolute auxiliary verbs e.g.,
(absolute) must, will (want to do), must not.[90]
• Absolute
Adjectives: e.g.: absolute, by oneself, actual,
categorical, primary, independent, total, surreal,
irrelevant.
•
Superlatives.
•
Absolute adverbs (=
circumstances)like: always, for
ever, never, impossible, unbelievable,
definitely not, in no way, obvious,
entirely clear, first-rank, certainly,
etc.
•
Absolute prefixes and suffixes like: un-, -less,
etc.
• Universal-statements =
sentences that include absolute words, proverbs or universal
statements.
I limit myself here in regard to the multiplicity
of possible inversions to known ideologies. Besides, there are,
as mentioned, countless other "private", nameless, dogmatized
attitudes. [Notes: ↔ means inversion.]
I will discuss aspects one by one:
Inversions of the dimensions, inversions of the differentiations
and the units.
• I. Being (spirit ↔ matter).
F.e: idealism, immaterialism, ontologism, spiritualism /
materialism, naturalism, formalism, structuralism.
(KW `The rule of matter over the spirit´).
• II. Live ↔ function.
e.g., Hylozoism, dynamism, energetics, functionalism, partly
philosophies of life, vitalism.
(KW `The rule of functions and functionairs over the life´).
• III. Absolute ↔ relative qualities.
e.g., Perfectionism, positivism, idealism / negativism.
• IV. Subject ↔ object- connections.
Relative connections are treated like absolute connections and
vice versa.
Objects are treated like subjects and vice versa.
e.g., subjectivism, objectivism, relationism, epiphenomenalism.
(KW `The rule of objects over the subjects´).
• On 1. Everything ↔ something.
Something is seen as everything - and everything is seen as
nothing.
• On 2. Transcendence (God, heaven,
spirit) ↔ immanence (world, matter, partly humanity).
• On 3. people ↔ things.
Things are seen as people and vice versa. (KW `Rule of the things over the human´).
• On 4. IA ↔ IR and I ↔ others.
Others/people or the own I are absolutized - and the own or
strange Absolute is being negated.
'Ego' as common term for an absolutized I. (KW
`The rule of Ego over the I´).
• On 5. spirit ↔ soul, body of a
person.
The human body (or parts of the body) or functions such as
look, physical capability, or well-being are absolutized - and the
actual Absolute spirit, such as the unconditional dignity of the
person is relativized or negated.
Additional aspects such as ownership, morality, ability, etc:
see unabridged German version.
- Every inversion also has positive effects!
Therefore, it is definitely not the bad or evil but more like an
emergency solution.
- Also, the +A can have negative results/ consequences,
comparable to the pain we have to bear at the dentist.
- The decisive factor for the pathogenesis of mental disorders
is not some kind of mistake or confusion but that those are
connected to the Absolute. Confusions of the Relative are
ubiquitous. Everything 'earthly', our every-day-life, our
communication, our way of thinking and our perception is more or
less alienated, paradoxical, senseless, traumatizing etc without
us getting ill automatically. Only if something becomes of
absolute relevance, it dominates over us and if it is not
compensated by something other, mental disorders may occur
Note: Readers, who do not wish to go
into the topic deeply, may skip this chapter and continue
reading with the chapter
'The personal It and
the strange Self´.
In this chapter I will discuss in more detail the
consequences of inversions.
From
inversions of psychically relevant dimensions, a new entity can
arise that dominates us and Inversions form new, strange realities
and personal parts.
In the following I will call this new, strange entity 'It'.
Thus
inversions
lead to the formation of something new, strange, which has
materialized and become independent. A formation has emerged that
represents the inversion of fundamental meanings and has inverting
effects, too.
Something has emerged that has detached itself from its creator and
is no longer his object but a new, strange, independent subject and
develops its own effect on its own. In this subject role, it
dominates us humans, which now become objects.
This
'It' has its own characteristics, which I will describe afterwards.
I distinguish between a small 'it' and a big
'It'. The small 'it' is subjugated to the I-self. The big 'It'
that is at issue here dominates the Ego.
Therefore the term 'It'
is used here to describe an 'it' with absolute
importance for a person.
It
is created by inversion, which causes an 'it'/'something' to
be absolutized and to become an It, which then dominates the
I.
Then I do no longer own it but It owns me. Therefore, It is the
cause for an event within a person, that the person cannot
control or influence. In every-day language, we often use also
the term It to describe that something (usually something
unknown) controls us: “It kills me on the inside.”, “It makes me
sick.”, “It confuses me.” and so on. Other than the term I, It
also indicates indeterminacy and subconsciousness.
All these characteristics match very well to the 'It' described
in this publication.
These Its play a special role in the emergence of mental
disorders (see later).
• The It described by S. Freud applies to
one of the three instances besides I and super-ego.[93]
• G. Groddeck describes it in a similar way. He
mentioned the important role of the It within our inner life in
“Book of the It”, even before Freud did.[94]
• Paul Auster: “What that 'it' referred to Quinn has
never known. A generalized condition of things as they were,
perhaps; the state of `it-ness´ that was the ground on which the
happenings of the world took place.” (New-York Trilogy, p. 135).
• Georg Büchner in 'Danton's Death': “What is it in us,
that lies, steals and murders? We are puppets and unknown powers
pull the strings; ... we are not ourselves!” (Act
2, Scene 5).
• Thomas Wolfe wrote about “... that something that
lived and wove in the dark, while the people slept, which
happened secretly, rejoicing and victorious all over the country
...”. (In `Death, the Proud Brother´)
• A.J. Cronin: "The stuff is in my body. It's myself… I
am the it itself.” [in: `The Adventure of a Black Bag´]
• In the book LTI, Victor Klemperer describes the
language of the Third Reich. I believe that one can view
the language and spirit of the Third Reich as equal to the
language and spirit of the It.
His description of a Nazi-march in LTI is an example of two
typical characteristics of the It:
hyper-identity and juxtaposition of lifelessness and
'hyper-vitality'. [95]
• The features that Stefan
Zweig gives the 'daemon' in his book 'The Struggle with
the Daemon' essentially correspond to an 'It'.
• It is typical, that also a horror film
(by Stephen King) is called 'It'.
It
= a strange dominating subject. More precisely:
It = special
entity, originated by inversions, which became independent and
dominates and changes WPI.[96]
It is a complicated formation with the most
varied of effects.
It is a fundamental basis for mental disorders.
However, the It is not “the evil” or solely negative because it
also contains positive sides, which are very important for its
persistence and penetrance.
It is - along with many other characteristics - strange and
divided.
An It consists of three parts: a pro-sA , a
contra-sA, and s0-part [97] ('triad'),
although it may also appear as a one-part or two- part
("monad" or "dyad")
Why does an It always consist of three parts?
In other words, why does an inversion always create three opposites?
Example: I idealize one matter (+ absolutization). This matter, however,
as a Relative, has apart from the absolutized positive, also a negative
and a negated side. These two sides are also absolutized (‒ and 0
absolutization).
At the beginning of absolutization, the It often appears one-sided /
one-part (like a 'monad'), later often ambiguous / bipartite (like a
'dyad'), although in reality it has three parts. Rarely do you
experience the It with all three parts as `triad' because mostly one
part dominates. In one part, like a monad, the It appears when one of its
parts (pro, + part, contra, - part or 0 part) is absolutized and the
other two are repressed or displaced. For example, if I absolutize my
strength, then I must negate my weaknesses and everything else that
contradicts strength. But the repressed or negated parts remain
latent.
Bipartite (like a 'dyad') one experiences the It when two of its parts
are simultaneously "activated", e.g., everything and nothing, pro and
contra, pro and nothing, contra and nothing.
In this way, the It has many opposites, depending on which part
dominates.
(I will explain these processes in more detail later.)
The various parts of the It, on the one hand opposing each other but are
interdependent on the other.
[The terms `dyad´ and` triad´ seem to describe well what
is meant here. One could designate the It as a 'dyad' as a
'WPI-determining binary or dual unit' (1 and 0) and interpret the
increasing digitization as an attempt to divide the world and people
into as many 1s and 0s ('It-parts') which threatens to dominate us
despite all progress and even tries to digitize psyche and spirit. The 'triad' also has a parallel in data processing in the
form of 'trinary' encryption, which allows the states 0, 1 and -1.]
I
repeat:
In the absolute area, prevail other laws and characteristics as
in the relative area.
If something Relative has penetrated into the absolute sphere
and is taken absolutely, although it is not an absolute, then a
very peculiar structure arises, a hermaphrodite, a strange,
which is inherent but not identical with the actual being that
has its own characteristics and dynamics, which partly agree
with those of the actual being but partly oppose them.
The greater the distance between a sA and the +A, the smaller
the accordance.
The It has strange characteristics, esp. those of a material
strange absolute, strange Self. As such, it is no longer
primarily the actual spiritual and the living but, above all,
strange material or thing and functional. The materialization
also means that it is no longer directly available and
changeable but only to change in the long term through new
attitudes.
(Detailed
representation of the character of the It see in
Summary
table, column H.)
That is
also, the more the It is
removed from the influence of the +A, the less are the laws of
life or the living spirit but mechanical or physical laws,
since now it is less about spirit
but about materialized being and its functions. In parallel, chaos arises.
The It are like parasites also, that became part of the host
organism (WPI), although they still remain strange and dominant;
Although both, the parasites and the host organism, entered into
a dependency in which both have advantages and disadvantages, it
is more beneficial for the parasites (the It) and contains some
kind of danger for the host (e.g., to become ill). [98]
The It creates and binds its own Relatives and forms with them a
separate unit (like nucleus and cytoplasm of the cell).
The It tries to expand itself and to dominate or subjugate
itself under others Its.
The It forms Co- or Contra- or 0-forms, which act similar or in
opposition to the primary forms.
The It forms bigger complexes and second-rate units, systems,
personalities - all of which together form second-rate
realities/ worlds.
Possible synonyms for the It in general:
Dyad, triad, parasite, symbiont, paper tiger,
chimera, delusion, fool's paradise, phantom, figment of
imagination, bastard, miscarriage, new strange, self-deceit.
Symbol of It in equilibrium: ☯.
Ideologies as examples for the collective It
Ideologies (`Ism´) are dogmatized worldviews, which
means that they are determined by strange Absolutes. Ideologies,
as collective Its they are main representatives of the It.
The person as the cause of such ideologies becomes the last
authority. As mentioned I see in ideologies ("official" like
"private") essential causes for mental disorders. Systematized I have listed them in the
Summary
table ,
column E. See also `Which
Its correspond to which ideologies´.
Introduction
I repeat: The absolutization of a Relative or the negation of an
actual Absolute can be the beginning of the emergence of the It. It
does not matter, whether it started with a break-in of the Relative
into the absolute-sphere, which caused a loss of A, or if it started
with a negation of an A, which enabled the R to break into that “empty
space” of the absolute-sphere. The absolutized R and the negated A act
as sA and s0 and create their own dimensions and differentiations and
together they create a new, strange instance: the It. As said, the It
differentiates and dimensionates itself by the (+ or ‒) all-or-nothing
principle. The new strange Absolutes (resp. `All´) and 0 become the
centers of new, strange personal or impersonal realities/worlds, which
they dominate. The inversions are like acts of creation that enable to
establish a variety of new strange worlds/realities. These second-rate
realities have their own characteristics and rules that we want to get
to know better in the following paragraphs. They live or die depending
on their centers - the It. Although these processes are very complex
and run side-by-side in many spheres, I have to divide them into
separate steps for the sake of comprehension before I present an
overall view. The different steps should be understandable when
remembering the hypotheses, that every reality is AR dimensioned and
BLQC differentiated.
In the following section, the emergence of all possible
It-parts and their sides will be presented.
At first, I will discuss the emergence of a two-part It (dyad)
to then discuss the emergence of a three-part It (triad) an
finally their different sides.
Depending on the kind of inversion, the It may
appear as dyadic It (all or nothing),
or as triadic It (pro-sA , contra-sA and 0 or asA, rsA and 0).
In the following paragraph I will describe how
inversions originate a dyad (`dyadic/ binary It´) in the form of
`All and Nothing´. These two parts of the It are created by the
basic mechanism of the inversion:
By totalization and by negation = all-or-nothing mechanism. The
following illustration will make it easier to understand that
process.
The graphic shows the emergence of new dimensions of the
It, referring to the all-or-nothing concept: From an absolutized
Relative¹ or totalized All¹ emerge strange All² - and a negated All¹
and something Relative¹ become strange Nothing (0).
The underlying inversion is illustrated by using gray color.
This all-or-nothing is a main characteristic of any It. Both parts of the dyad are connected with each other closely. They are basically two sides of the same thing, of the It. Although they are as if they were welded together, they are also separated from each other and stand on opposite sides. They are friends and enemies at the same time. They depend on each other and destroy each other. However, they coincide in their shared opposition against the first-rate AR resp. reality¹.
Synonyms for sA: Pseudoabsolute, secondary, substitutive, strange Absolutes/ dominations, part of a triad, partly as obsessions, fixations. [Similar to Freud's concept of fixation].
Sergi Avaliani comes to a very similar conclusion as I do
concerning the Pseudoabsolute from a philosophical point of view:
Too much of a good thing* is a bad thing (Saying)
Synonyms: False Gods, ideals,
love-objects, 'drugs', glorified objects, wrong centering etc.
As strange Absolutes they represent: strange or substitute
sense, strange or substitute identity, -truth, -reality, -unity,
-safety, -reason, -autonomy and -freedom. Compared to the +A,
the +sA appear more fascinating, more direct, more provable,
more touchable.
Emergence: Something Relative is viewed as absolutely
positive/right, without being it.
[99]
Typical examples for +sA are: Money, power, health, youth, sex,
achievement, performance, the relative good and right, morality,
fidelity, knowledge, wisdom, control, the human itself,
[100] especially idealized people, the own
person, “saints” or other earthly matters.
[101]
The graphic
illustrates, how a part of the absolute-area is being conquered by a
relative positive.
Therefore that absolutized area adapts to the characteristics of the
strange positive Absolute.
The +sA becomes the most important in two different ways: it becomes the best (subjective) and the most expensive (objective). The +sA does not only imitate the +A but exceeds it in its positive effects. Compared to the +A, the +sA impresses more fascinating, better, more direct, more tangible, more provable, etc. in the short term. This makes them particularly seductive. However, this hyper-positive effect is connected with greater disadvantages occurring above all later. Thus morality becomes moralism, search for truth leads to bossiness, autonomy to self-importance, humanism becomes one-sided altruism or hard-heartedness, reconciliation and peace must then be achieved at any price - even at the price of self-sacrifice.
Synonyms: false friends, false objects
of hate, false deadly sins, false demonization.
Emergence: Relatives, that are taken absolutely negative as
absolutely bad/evil. Typical examples: immorality, fault, illness,
weakness, inferiority, impotence, failure, sorrow, death,
conflicts, problems, aggression, the evil,
[103] loneliness, traumas, certain people.
‒sA are also often recognizable when using “I
definitely cannot...”. For example: "I cannot be angry!",
“I definitely cannot become like my dad!”.
The graphic illustrates how a relative negative breaks into the
absolute-area (or how a lack in the absolute-area is being replaced by
the relative negative). With that absolutization, it gains the
characteristics of an strange negative Absolute.
Whenever a positive Relative is absolutized
positively, the impacts will be much lower, than if a positive
Relative is absolutized negatively or a negative Relative is
absolutized positively.
Also see: Ambivalent, paradoxical
behavior, Inverted, paradoxical world
+sA and ‒sA depend on each other and exclude each
other at the same time. They fight each other or promote each
other. ("Evil never thrives better than when an ideal precedes
it." Karl Kraus). They are opposites and nevertheless the same.
Like a reflection in a mirror, where the opposites are however
the same. The devil is then only a co-player of the false God in
the same game. The phrases “Les extrêmes se touchent” (The
opposites are touching”) or: “The extremes are equal”, “Extremes
are often together”, “The extraordinary is equal” and so on,
express the same statement.
Every It carries potentially its own enemy and its
nothing in itself , and is so doomed to fail in the long run.
Those who stick on their lives are more likely to lose it than those who live it calmly with God.
Because in our time many people no longer believe
in God and eternal life, earthly life and death are
absolutized. Earthly life is then the most important positive
sA and accordingly death is the worst sA and one could also understand all other sA as a
consequence of these absolutizations. One would have to speak
exactly of (second-rate) death² and life², because in my
opinion it is not about real death and real life, but about
absolutizing earthly forms of existence. Both condition
each other: the greater our greed for life, the greater our fear
of death. And the greater our fear of death, the greater our
greed for life.
But also from a certain point you find the opposite (→Reversal
into the opposite):
the greater our fear of death, the sooner we want to die. And
the more we live greedily, the less fear we have before death
because we then repress it. (All possibilities can also coexist
at the same time.)
This possibility that death and life can mutually reinforce,
although they are completely opposite, is a characteristic of
their second-rate reality. For me, this possibility is also a
sign that this is not the last issue. Only complete death (after
Rev. 20: 6, the "second death") and eternal life are completely
incompatible and mutually exclusive.
The following graphic illustrates the creation of
asA and rsA more detailed.
This graphic illustrates the emergence of asA and rsA. The Absolute without the Relative becomes absolutistic (= hyper-absolute) asA -and many or all absolutized Relatives become relativistic (= hyper-relative) rsA. There is a contrary opposition between asA and rsA.
Synonyms: Zero, nothing, vacuum,
emptiness, deficiency.
Shortcuts: s0, 0² or mostly 0.
I have already mentioned, that parallel to the
absolutization of a Relative, there will be a negation of actual
A., As a result, a defect in the absolute-sphere, an empty
space, a nothingness emerges. That nothingness itself is not
actual but a second-rate (²), a pseudo-nothingness but something
that will be experienced as total nothingness. It has three
sides: a positive, a negative, and an own, empty side, that will
be discussed below.
With the choice of the nothingness, a person also chooses
the opposite strange All or sA. [104]
Therefore, negation creates contradicting opposites.
[105]
Negation means: A is negated, ignored,
superfluous, deselected, not considered, repressed,
excluded etc.
Personally, that usually means the negation/ devaluation
of a person´s actual Self.
What are the Absolutes, that are negated?
= the three actual A: +A , ‒A and the personal `absolute
attitude´.
•
Negation of +A:
What is +A? Believable assurances to a person, such as
formulated by religion, human rights, or love.
(Here categorized by the 7 aspects of dimension).
[106]
1
– The unconditional love of God1,
i.e. every person is loved by God1 for
its own sake.
2 – The unconditional personal identity, the Self.
3 – The
uniqueness of a person.
4 – The integrity of a person.
5 – The unconditional right to exist of a person.
6 – The unconditional dignity of a person.
7 – The right to self-determination of a person.
[107]
The person leaves his/her inner paradise an inverts him-/herself if he rejects such absolute assurances. One could also say: Inversion also happens, when a person does not believe to be unique, unconditionally loveable, equal, free, etc.
• Negation of ‒A
Attention to the negation of the -A¹ is also
important because by its negation another negative,
which in itself is only relative, takes its place and
gains absolute significance for us. That means, that something that only worries us in
a relative way and only appears to be a relative problem,
becomes unbearable and seems to be insoluble. Now, the person is
scared of something, that is really not fearsome at all.
• Negation
of the `absolute attitude´:
As
said: In itself, the `absolute attitude´ is absolutely free in the
choice of + A or ‒A.
Ideologies, however, either negate this choice ("man has no free
will") or over
expand it ("man is completely free").
•
Example: + / ‒/ 0
Concerning the quality, every Relative is only more or less
positive, negative or neutral.
In the case of an absolutization that changes: the fluent
transitions of more or less positive and negative (good and bad)
are polarized and totally disconnected. Now, certain things or
people are categorized as `absolutely good´, `absolutely evil´,
`black or white´ or similar, although they are not. The affected
experiences specific relative things in an absolutely good or
bad (...) way or that was taught to him/her that way in the
past. Because of that, he/she now only sees the world/ the
things that (extreme) way. Like looking at it with a magnifying
glass, everything seems to be bigger/ more extreme than it
actually is. There is nothing (0) between these opposites.
It is important to say, that this person often has certain
advantages first and mainly disadvantages later on.
The graphic shows how something Relative
changes after an inversion. It is polarized, compressed and
finally divided
into +sA, ‒sA and 0.
The original unit is
basically torn into the different, opposite parts. On the other
hand, those parts are connected with each
other
very closely. (Symbol on the right)
• Example: strength/ weakness
This illustration shows how an
inversion creates by absolutizing of Relatives certain It-parts:
a pro-sA out of strength, a contra-sA out of weakness and a
nothingness (0) out of others (and out of through the
absolutization negated Relatives itself).
The following differentiation can be made then: A first part,
that I will call pro-sA , here strength*, a contrary opposite
part, which is the contra-sA, here weakness* and a contradictory
opposite part,
the zero-part (s0), the nothingness.*[108]
I want to
explain the origin of the three It-parts by means of this
example: (partly repetition). Two Relatives, here 'strength' and
'weakness' are relative opposites. We can see, that both terms
(or their meaning) are not separated sharply of each other but
into each other go over. The curve of the `strength´ reaches in
the area of the `weakness´ and vice versa. That means both terms
are not representing anything absolute. Neither the strength is
absolute, otherwise, it would be almighty, nor the weakness is
absolute, otherwise, it would be impotent. Instead, strength
contains some of the weakness and weakness contains some of the
strength. Strength and weakness, therefore, create a polar
couple. They are on opposite sides but do not exclude each
other. They are part of something bigger, something whole (+A).
They are part of that bigger unit, without being identical.
Besides them, there is something other with that they are also
connected. It is not called strength nor weakness but they are
also a part of it, without losing its own identity. Strength and
weakness have a relative relation to this other, just like they
have a relative relation with themselves. How is that situation
changed due to an inversion?
Strength is not understood as relative but as absolute, as
almighty. Weakness is seen as powerlessness that has to be
avoided (‒sA contrary to +sA). That also means, that this
absolutized strength (strength*) excludes weakness or anything
similar - such as other absolutized parts exclude their
opposites. With that, the opponents are not only relative
opposites but absolute opposites now . There is now a contrary
and a contradictory opposite for every part. However, they also
depend on each other and are strongly connected to each other,
too.
So
far, we established how inversion can create three parts
(`triad´).
Now the hypothesis is, that each of these three parts also has
three sides.
How can these originate? Explaining the emergence of the three
parts of the It, we assumed that every Relative in W¹ has a
relative opposite, that is also absolutized if an absolutization
takes place. (Besides that, a nothingness is created).
Parallel in addition, I assume that in W¹ not
only every Relative faces to another Relative but that every
Relative also has his relative opposite (and other) in
itself. Put in other words: One Relative contains
above all what the term calls, besides, however, also its
relative opposites. I.e. one can recognize by a Relative in W¹
on the one hand one side (the main side), which the term calls,
besides however, also two „sub-sides“: one, that represents its
relative opposite and one that represents others. Now in the
case of the absolutization not only the main side become
absolutized but also the sub-sides. Every part, Pro-sA, the
Contra-sA and 0 get thereby beside his main side two absolutized
reverse sides (which are mostly suppressed).
Example: strength/weakness
Using the example of absolutization of
strength and weakness, this illustration shows how the three
sides of each It-part are formed.
Since strength usually also `contains´ some weakness, the
inversion causes that side to be absolutized as well and
represents a negative side of the pro-sA 'strength'.
Finally, strength does contain not only some weakness but also
something else (others), which becomes 0-side of the pro-sA .
The same applies to the two other parts, contra-sA and 0. The *
should emphasize again that these are absolutizations.
Examples of different sA with their 3 sides:
• The 3 sides of the + *
Each It can have 9 Different Connotations
The graphic shows how each It can look different depending on which of the 9 sides dominates.
Example: It represents any x *
Pro part:
if its + side dominates: x * is great
if its ‒ side dominates: x * is exhausting
if its 0 side dominates: x * does not matter, (has become) worthless.
Contra-part:
if its ‒ side dominates: x * is bad
if its + side dominates: x * is liberating
if its 0 side dominates: x * is suppressed
0 part:
if its 0 side dominates: x * is nothing
if its ‒ side dominates: x * was lost
if its + side dominates: P has nothing more to lose.
Hints:
• Every It, even an opposite one, can generate all
of these 9 basic patterns (although different in structure and content
depending on the It). (See also `Spreading and compression´).
• The change from one part or side to another occurs abruptly and not
fluidly (similar to the quantum leap of an electron).
• If one is looking for interpretations for a phenomenon, then this
triad model is well suited.
Example: If I feel good, then this well-being can come from a pro,
contra or 0 part. E.g. I feel good because I was moral (+ from the pro
part) or because the immorality was seductive (+ from the contra part)
or I experience it as liberating to place myself beyond morality or
immorality (+ from the 0 part ).
This also means that every event (such as a symptom) can come from every
It, but also from + or ‒A (which I will come back to) - but with a
diverse probability.
The sides with the same connotations form groups/ pacts even if they
come from different parts or Its, but because of their backsides they
are enemies. So superficial love² can quickly turn into hate or vice
versa. (More on that later).
The It as a Nine-Sided Triad-model explains many contradictions
The model of the It as a triad can explain contradicting phenomena well:
• Contradicting causes can have the same effects and similar causes can
have completely contradicting effects.
And vice versa: The same effects (e.g. symptoms) can have similar but
also different causes. And different effects (e.g. symptoms) can have
different but also similar causes.
This also means that every event (such as a symptom) can come from any
It (but also from + or ‒A).
• With regard to the sides, this also means: Each of these sides can
come from any of the main parts.
As said before, the It is like a chameleon: it can appear and act as
monade, dyad or triad. And the appearance depends on which of the sides
of the different It-parts dominate.
In comparison to +A¹ and ‒A¹, that are not divided
and have no backsides. Therefore, the characteristics and dynamics in W²
are very different from W¹.
• The transformation of the It into its opposites - such as the behavior
or feeling of a person, which is dominated by an It, can suddenly and
unexpectedly change into its opposite.
(See also Reversal into the opposite)
• The model explains how people (or WPI as a whole) who interact with
one another are first best friends, but then, mostly surprisingly and
unexpectedly, can become enemies or completely indifferent to one
another. (→ Possibilities of Interactions)
• The model explains how paradoxes can arise.
(See also `Most important links regarding opposites´)
In comparison to +A¹ and ‒A¹, that are not divided
and have no backsides, the Its present themselves as centers of
second-rate realities, divided into two sides (all-or-nothing) or three sides (pro-, contra- and zero-part) which
also have backsides. Therefore, the characteristics and dynamics
in W² are very different from W¹.
[110]
• Considering
the orientation of valences the following differentiation can be
made:
1. The opposites („hostilities”)
a) contrary opposites
b) contradictory opposites
2. The `pacts´ / fusions
3. The `nothings´ (nothingnesses)
• Considering the localization of the valences:
1. Inner powers / valences inside the It.
2. Power / valences of the It to the outside.
There are similarities to the theories of valence in language.[111] (See also `Overview of all It-valences´ below).
I distinguish
•
Opposite It with opposing world, people and I (WPI).
• Mergers, fusions, pacts with corresponding WPI.
• Negations.
Opposing It (fig. left) or It with
similar Co-forms (fig. right) or negations can,
like their `carrier´ (WPI,
a. fight each other or
b. make pacts / reinforce / merge with
c. neutralize, dissolve each other or
d.turn into their opposite
- depending on which of their sides are "activated"!
In terms of the consequences, this means that new opposites or pacts or negations may have arisen from opposing or too similar or dissolving dynamics.
This illustration presents how two (or more) Its
interact with each other,
using their different sides comparable with gear-wheels.
The pro-sA -part of the It is illustrated
without a pattern, the contra-part is gray and the zero-part is
illustrated with dots.
They agree in the fight against W¹. As soon as another enemy is in sight, they create a pact. As soon as the enemy is defeated, they ruin their own fellow campaigners. That already shows fundamental characteristics of disorders in society and also within an individual.
I distinguish:
• An absolute opposite: between +A and ‒A.
• Relative 'opposites' (= polarities) between different
Relatives.
• Strange absolute opposites (that's what it's all about here):
contrary opposites between Pro/+sA and Contra/‒sA,
contradictory opposites between All and nothing resp. sA and
nothing.
[Hints: I use Pro and + as well as Contra and ‒ synonymously; *
indicates the absolutization.
For Pro/+ you can use: idol, ideal*, love*, luck*, etc. For Contra/‒sA
you can use: `devil', taboo*, hate*, etc.,
Yin-Yang
☯ is a symbol of the It
opposites in balance.]
I mentioned: If a Relative is absolutized,
its opposite is absolutized as well. I.e. with the strange `All´ we also
choose the strange `nothingness '. With the strange positive Absolute
(resp. pro-sA) we also choose the strange negative Absolute (resp.
contra-sA) and vice versa; and the strange 'nothingness' with them. Thus
every uncorrected inversion creates a dyad (all-or-nothing) or a triad
(pro-sA, contra-sA and 0). In other words: a false God gives birth to a
devil and vice versa, an ideal* creates a taboo* and vice versa, love*
creates hatred* and ever nothingness too, etc.
The It is defined by the fact, that the mentioned parts are
contradicting and too similar at the same time. The parts are facing
each other like a reflection in a mirror. They are like contrary twins
(dyad) or triplets (triad).
An It excludes the others but at the same time, it includes/ binds or
negates them. That´s why one finds, that opposites attract, or fight or
negate each other. And the same with fusions and negations. One can also
say that opposites are never only contrary but also the same. Similarly,
pacts also contain opposites and both negations (0). Second-rate
realities and personal parts are at the same time too contrary
(contradictory) as too equal and too null.
The mentioned statement that the extremes are touching themselves (“Les
extrêmes se touchent”) marks also the situation very well, they are
extremely apart from each other as well as they are chained at the same
time. A picture and its reflection also represent the double-character
of such pro- and contra-forms. One may say: Nothing is as similar and as
dissimilar at the same time as its reflection.
Depending on the situation, any of the three It-parts can be dominant.
That means that the It can be very different, contradicting and crazy
but also uniform and neutral. It seems to be the same at first, then the
opposite to finally disappear in the nothingness.
As I said, the opposite can
a. fight each other or
b. make pacts / reinforce / merge with each other or
c. neutralize, dissolve each other or
d. also turn into the opposite
- depending on which of their sides are "activated"! (See graphic
above).
• Physics: "For every action, there is an equal and
opposite reaction." (Newton: 3rd mechanical law).
One could also interpret nuclear fission, nuclear fusion and
radioactivity (decay) as special dynamics of second-rate realities.
• Color generates a complementary color.
• The pursuit of balance, KW self-regulation and feedback.
(For details see unabridged version).
In W¹ there is only one absolute opposite:
The opposite between +A and ‒A. All the other opposites in W¹
are only relative. Therefore, it makes sense, to talk only about
differences or polarities when it comes to those spheres. There
are R¹ that are polar opposites of another R¹ and are therefore
representing relative opposites. Both of them create certain
opposites-pairs or antipole-pairs, that could also be named
“dipoles”, or “tripoles”. In W¹, the relative single parts are
permeated and embraced by +A. They show fluent passages and no
harsh limits. Here is variety and no homogeneity. You could also
say: Since no R¹ is absolutely limited from another one, they
are all connected to each other (through the +A). Every part
contains some of the other parts as well. Humans, however, have
to put the different parts into words to communicate with each
other. Those words are separate from each other. They indicate
the specific irrelevant pole of the meaning of something,
without mentioning all the other meanings along with it.
Whenever we describe an opposite or difference in our every-day
language, it usually does not indicate whether it is a relative
or an absolute opposite - unless it is specifically expressed.
However, for the understanding of our topic, that difference
(relative, absolute or pseudo-absolute) is of great importance.
In the second-rate realities,
especially in their centers, the Its, those differences are not
perceived as relative but as absolute - but in reality, they are
pseudo-absolute. With that, the named opposites do not only
represent opposites in general but also paradoxes, splittings
and contradictions.
To
the topics:
- `The opposites of the It´
- 'Mutation and adaptation of the It to its carrier / subject'
- `Types of the It'
- 'formation of larger complexes' see later `personal It´ or in
detail in the unabridged version.
In parallel to the opposites one can differentiate:
• An
absolute connection between the + A / God1 and
the person with + absolute attitude.
• Relative connections
• Fusions, mergers, pacts as seemingly absolute
connections.
Like opposites, they can
a. strengthen each other or further merge and make more pacts
b. fight each other
c. neutralize, dissolve, negate each other or
d. turn into their opposite.
depending on which side of the underlying It is activated. (See figure above).
For more on contradictions, packages and cancellations, see the unabridged version.
See above or e.g. All-or-nothing relationships.
The graphic also helps to understand the main
paradoxes.
Originally in W¹, i.e. non-absolutized, those phenomena do
not create pacts (equals), enmities (opposites) or neutrals.
They only became such because of inversion.
Trial to allocate ideologies in the sense of this
publication.
For further assignments, see Summary
table
column E.
Hypothesis: The dynamics and
interactions between the Its and the ideologies are the same. [113]
Like the Its all ideologies would have both: misabsolutization
and negation. An ideology, or sA, cannot integrate its opposite
ideology but must fight it, although at the same time it owes
its existence to its opposite. And one can conclude that all
ideologies are potentially pathogenic - and even more so the
more unlike they are to the positive Absolute (+A), or in other
words, the less love they impart.
Explanation of key terms
sS =
strange Self: strange
personal Absolute. Qualitatively further distinguished
in:
+sS = the positive strange Self. Here equated with
pro-sS.
‒sS = the negative strange Self. Here equated with
contra-sS.
[asS =
absolutistic sS (also hyper-Self) and rsS = relativistic sS are
not dealt with further in this abstract.]
p∀ = pAll = personal absolutized All.
[Quantitative description of a strange Self. Mostly used in the
contrast to the non-Self,
p0 = personal nothingness.]
p It = personal It: complex, that controls that person (P) and that contains two (all
and nothing)
or three (pro-, contra-sS and 0) parts as a dyad or triad.
Hints:
Where the difference between `p It 'and `sS' does not matter,
I use both terms synonymously.
Since this chapter is only about personal topics, I omit often
the abbreviation `p' for the sake of simplicity.
Synonyms and characteristic terms for p It
- Strange-, pseudo-, spare-, help-,
emergency-, substitute-, compensation-, false-, divided center/
- Self of a person.
- 'homunculus', demon, parasite, devil, false friend, inner
tyrant. Also: It as the dominant unconscious.
Everything that was described
concerning the emergence of the general It, also applies to
the personal It. [114]
Analogical to the general It-description one can say: Due to an
inversion, something Relative will be taken as absolute and the
actual personal Absolute, the Self, is being negated.
The absolutized Relative may be of the person himself, or he may
have an external origin. In both cases, something new, strange
and personal is created with its own characteristics and
dynamics.
I.e. a strange, second-rate Absolute, the strange Self, is
created in the personal absolute-sphere after a
misabsolutization. With this misabsolutization, the person also
negates a part of his/her Self, so that there is not only a
strange Self in the center of the person but also a “non-Self”.
Those new, strange, central powers within the person are called
the personal It in this publication. The personal It embodies a
new and strange, controlling power, that exists along with the
original first-rate power.
Initially, P has had dominance but loses its power continuously
and becomes the loser in this situation.
A very important fact is, that the individual is convinced
that the strange Self and not the actual Self is the right
one. P is convinced to get major advantages from the choice of
the strange Self. That fact is also a reason for holding
on to the illness and therefore refusing to become healthy
again.
(Also see later: Freud's morbid gain and the Resistance).
The new strange personal feature appears like a kind of strange
person within us. Of course, there is no real new person being
created but features, that imitate the actual person, take a
certain spot within a person, or are taken instead of the actual
person. Later on, we will discuss how the new strange personal
parts can “talk” to us in the shape of acoustic hallucinations,
or do many other things with us.
The comparison with a homunculus as some kind of false person,
within us, is apparent and is used as a model for the described
personal It in the following sections. Firstly, it is important
to remember, that strange Self and non-Self, like a kind of
homunculus within a person, are both dimensioned and
differentiated in a characteristic way, which affects P in its
psychical center. That becomes apparent in what I will call the
'subject-object-reversal'. That means, that wherever the
sS/resp. It is in control, the person loses its subject-role,
and now becomes the It as subject and which determines the
person as its object. With that, the person does not live
first-rate anymore but second-rate, only functioning through the
certain It. The second major result is a personalization of the
It and a reification of the person. Things are seen as something
personal and a part of the person becomes a kind of thing.
Looking at the dynamics (verbs or predicates), the focus of the
beginning of the emergence of p It is:
The It becomes independent, changes and lives by itself. That
process affects all of the seven aspects of dimension and the
connected differentiations of the It.
Mutation and Adaption of the It
to the Person, and vice versa
Depending on where the p It is established, two
main changes can be discovered:
1. The It changes P in its sense, according to its pattern resp.
the person adapts to the It.
But also:
2. The It adapts to the person. It becomes more like the person,
such as a parasite that is adapted to the host organism.|
Brief Overview of the Origins and Structure of the Personal It and the Second-rate Personal (P²)
1st step (inversion) was: P inverts R and A (that
was discussed on top).
2nd step (realization): the absolutized R (R*) becomes sS =
strange Self and the actual Self becomes non-Self. Both are
building the core of p It.
3rd step: simultaneous differentiation BLQC (Being, Life,
Qualities, Connections become strange).
4th step: The p It subjects further Relatives and forms new
strange personal (P²).
That is, an absolutized something with originally relative
dimensions and differentiations changes into a new strange
personal "unity" (P²) with new strange dimensions,
differentiations, and connections, and the actual Self and
personal are lost at this sphere.
(The
development
of the p It can also be found in the Summary
table
column G.)
This graphic illustrates the development
of the personal It (left to right). On the very left,
there is a person with a healthy self- and relative-sphere.
Rightwards, the inversion of a Relative and the Self is symbolized.
After that, the creation of an It-center (as Yin-Yang symbol) is being
illustrated, which finally creates its own relative- sphere, as shown in the picture on the very right. You
can also see, that the p It controls a part of P but the other part of
P still contains the actual Self and has a first-rate relative-sphere,
too.
Structure of the Personal It
Parallel to the structure of the general It, this
is about the structure of the personal It.
Every p It, such as every other p unit, has three main
dimensions: personal strange Absolute resp. strange Self, its
relative sphere and nothingness and four main differentiations:
strange personal BLQC.
Appearances of the Personal It
The personal It is per se a 'triad' and built of
three parts (pro +, contra ‒ and 0).
However, it may appear different:
- as monad (with
only one direction of action)
-
as dyad (split binary)
- as triad. The creation of the personal It as nine-sided triad
happens analogously to the generally described creation of the
nine-sided triad and is therefore not described again (see there).
Symbols
• Personal It as nine-sided triad:
These
symbols represent the personal It as nine-sided triad.
Both graphics also
illustrate how a person is caught within the triad.
• Yin-Yang
☯ is a symbol of the It opposites
in balance.
Comparison to Similar Terms
• Freud's
'Id' (see general part).
• Self- and object-representations.
I think:
- Everything that is relative may be a self- or object-representation
(interior or exterior).
- The Its are special representations because they are dominating.
Here, they are described also with the terms of their
parts: strange Self and
non-Self.
Main Characteristics of the Personal It
The personal It (p It) has the same main
characteristics as the It in general. I want to address only
briefly how they concern the person.
The p It has strange characteristics, especially those of a
strange Absolute and of a strange nothing.
It bonds its own Relatives, differentiates itself and therefore
creates its own, independent and personal unit.
It controls specific areas of a person. It tries to expand or it
conquers other Its.
It builds complexes and second-rate, personal systems.
Altogether, they form a second-rate, personal reality.
It is no longer freely available for P² but able to be voted out
by P¹, however, it still does not disappear right away.
The further p It moves away from +A, the more do mechanical and physical rules apply instead of the rules of life or
of the living spirit, since the It is more materialized than the
spirit.[115]
How Can you Recognize the Personal It?
Terms such as “always”, “never”, “absolute”,
“definitely”, “no way” “for sure” and so on, indicate an
absolutization. Common phrases are: “I hate you”, “I love that more than life”, “You
are my all” or similar.
Also very typical: “I have absolutely to do that.”
Everyday It and Lifelong It
Such as described in the section of the general Its, the p Its may be very fugitive but also may stay for an entire life. A thought, that only lasts and dominates for a short time would be equivalent to a fugitive It. A traumatizing experience in the early childhood is an example for a lifelong It.
“Choice” of the p It
The decision
of which strange Absolutes (sA) resp. Its is going to be established,
often depends on the initial conditions. If a child lives in a
disturbed family, it will probably adapt to the sA of the parents
(mainly unknowingly). Or the child tries to compensate these
disadvantages with the opposites: if the child is overwhelmed with
arguments and aggression, it will probably absolutize harmony and
peacefulness as a reactive response, to protect itself. Or, if
disorientation, confusion and follies dominate a family's life, a
possible defense mechanism would be protecting itself by focusing on
prudence and regulation. With that said, misabsolutizations are often
results of unconscious defense mechanisms of childhood, that appear to
be a relief of unbearable situations. To put in other words: Many
times, misabsolutizations are the results of our inner protection,
which eventually becomes more of prison or too costly.
(See also: Mental disorders
from biographical perspective).
As adults, we adapt at such Absolutes (partly passive, partly active)
usually because of a short-term advantage.
More about the Different
forces and connections in the personal It, see the corresponding
remarks in the general chapter.
I repeat: The strange Self (sS) corresponds to the
strange Absolute within a person. I call it the strange
Self to differentiate it from the general strange Absolute
and because the term 'self' is more personal and less general.
The terms `strange Self' and `personal It´ I usually use
synonymous, unless I distinguish
it differently. [116]
Typical examples for the strange Self:
as +*: achievements, idols, the ego, health, knowledge, status;
as ‒*: traumas, failure, impotence, illness, death;
But all Relatives are also possible as sS.
“False self” and other terms
“Thanks to Winnicott, we know about the concept of
the true and the false self, whereby the false self adjusts to
the needs of an insufficient environment and the true self stays
concealed and split off.” [117]
Janov uses the term 'unreal self', R.D. Laing uses the term
'divided self'.
Any of the terms mentioned above, describes only a certain
aspect of the strange Self but does not include all aspects at
once, which would hard to do. The term 'strange Self'
emphasizes the alienation of the person, 'spare-self' emphasizes
the replaceability, 'conditional self' emphasizes that I only
feel myself if I fulfill certain conditions, and so on. Taking
all the different psychical aspects into consideration,
different terms might be found that are also good suitable. To
me, the term 'strange Self' seems to be best. The term 'false
self' appears one-sided negative because the sS also contains
positive sides and no human is free of it and the term "divided
self" does not call the possibility of fusions.
Classified by: |
strange-Self (sS) |
DIMENSIONS: |
|
A |
strange Self |
DIFFERENTIATION: |
|
B |
Being of the strange Self Life of the strange Self Qualities of the strange Self Connections of the strange Self
|
23 single aspects |
According to the Summary table column H |
Because of the importance: partial repetition.
How is the emergence
of the strange Self (sS)?
It is originated after the same principles than a general
It/sA : After an absolutization of R, or a negation of A¹, which
where not corrected, a new and strange (ns) center is being
established and differentiated within a person, a strange Self,
which is experienced as the actual Self. With that, some kind of
a dominant strange object is developed within us. Unlike other
internalizations or introjections, that 'personal strange
object' takes over the role of the Self including all its
characteristics. Thus, a new personal reality is created, which
will determine us. That is different than characteristics or
personality traits that are created within us if those are only
of relative importance.
Later on, we will see
how the strange Self negates the actual Self. The strange Self
behaves like the actual Self resp. personal Absolute and tries
to adjust its features. Therefore, the affected person
experiences it with those absolute features and accepts it as
his/her own Absolute. Although the sS is not able to ever
fully replace the actual Self, it achieves a partial success:
It partly represents the Self and becomes very similar to it.
That causes a typical situation for mental disorders to occur:
The strange Self is being experienced as the own Self and the
own Self is being experienced as strange (or as nothing).
That´s why the affected person has feelings of alienation most
of the time. If the identification with a strange Self is far
progressed, the identity feeling can properly turn round
itself: Then the person can have subjectively a good identity
sensation, although he/she is objectively very alienated - and
he/she can feel vice versa strong alienation, although he/she
is objectively self-determined.
Examples: obligation and possession as strange Selves (sS)
I want to explain the resulting situation more
detailed by using the graphic from above. Let us assume that a
person views the performance of his/her obligations as absolute
(aspect 12). The performance of obligations is then superior to
the Self. The self (-confidence, -esteem, -determination) is now
mainly made conditional on the performance of obligations. As
long as the performance of obligations is subordinated to the I,
the I-self dominated, remained the boss in his own house and
could handle adequately from this position with an offense
against obligation, i.e. relaxed and free enough. Then I-self
"knows" that my Self is the more important, first-rate, more
valuable etc. and that the fulfillment of obligations in
contrast to it has a relative meaning. However, if the
performance of obligations became a strange Self, it now claims
the same characteristics as the ones that are only supposed to
be owned by the actual Self. But now the Ego cannot simply with
willpower get rid of the strange Self because it is materialized
and personalized in the meantime.
+ and – strange-Selves
(Note: +sS and ‒sS are synonymous with
pro-sS and contra-sS).
Such as we differentiated the strange-Absolute as +sA and ‒sA,
we can also distinguish the strange Self as +sS and ‒sS. +sS and
‒sS of the same aspect belong together. Per se, they are two
relatively contrary poles of one aspect but now separated due to
an absolutization, although rigidly connected also to each
other.
Absolutized opposites are depended and separated from each other
at the same time. They are the opposite and the same
simultaneously. Such as a reflection in a mirror is the same but
yet converse. They depend on each other and exclude each other
at the same time. They coincide and are different in addition.
Superficially, they are enemies but when it comes to fighting a
third person (object), they are accomplices.
+ strange-Self (+sS)
Synonym: pro-Self or super-Self, personal as: false God, golden calf, crutch, corset, also fixed or false ideals/objects of love/ glorified; 'drugs' (otherwise see +sA).
‒ strange Self (‒sS)
Synonym: against- or contra- or
anti-Self, personal as: false enemies, or objects of hate, false
demonization, traumas
(otherwise see ‒sA).
Strange-Self as Dyad with Reverse
Sides:
Using the
Yin-Yang symbol, the illustration shows a +sS and a ‒sS in pro-
and contra-position
with its contrary reverse sides.
(The non-Self and the 0-sides of +sS and ‒sS are not
shown here).
Difference between strange Selves and Traits or Personality Signs
The strange Self is always of absolute importance for the affected person. Character traits can be of absolute or of relative importance for the certain person, whereas a strange Self is always of absolute importance. In the everyday language, it remains uncertain if for instance such as the need for harmony is of relative or of absolute importance for a person. However, in psychodynamics the difference is important. The absolute position of the trait will cause all results of a strange Self, which still closer to be discussed. This is not in the case of a trait with relative meaning in such a way. Then the effects of the trait will have only relative results. The person, for example, will not be able to be split by them. The situation is comparable with somebody, with pleasure alcohol drinks (personality trait) and another who is dependent on alcohol.
Shortcuts and synonyms for the
non-Self: p0², p0, not-Self, personal nothingness.
Emergence:
The emergence of the
non-Self is equal to that of the general It, the
all-or-nothing-principle by sacrificing the actual Self. [118]
(See if necessary All-and-Nothing
Emergence´ in general).
The non-Self includes, regarding the dimensions above all
absence or loss of sense, identity, reality, unity, safety,
freedom, personal foundation, and autonomy. The non-Self
includes, regarding the differentiations above all absence or
loss of the first-rate personality, vitality, qualities,
subject-role, and connections.
Origins: above all nihilism and materialism.
(Similar to The It in general. For more detail, see unabridged German version).
Differentiation of the personal It/ strange Self by: [119]
1. Structuring (here
above all personalization)
2. Vitalization
3. Qualifications
4. Contextualization, subjectivization.
The personal It or strange Self is established in a person at
the border of spirit and body - initially, in the shape of a
spiritual misabsolutization, that crosses the border to the
physical, which then becomes a new form of strange being and
life with specific connections. In this form as a personal It,
it dominates the person and becomes an essential cause for
mental disorders. It personalizes itself, becomes alive,
specially qualifies itself and creates new, strange connections.
Therefore it becomes a new strange personal being, life, quality
and subject with a new context.
This personal It corresponds in the organic sphere probably
certain centers (I think not only in the brain) with particular
functions that are connected again with other relevant
structures functionally and organically with each other. The
structures and functions have strange, in particular,
all-or-nothing or pro-contra-or-nothing characteristics.
Especially to 4. The p It becomes
a new strange determining subject.
The main influence on the person is: The It makes P to its
object.
Here, another additional characteristic of the strange Self/
It becomes visible: The strange Self takes the position of a
personal, vivid subject, whereas P or the I take the position
of an object. [120] While the I-self as subject was based on a solid
ground before, that unit is being disturbed: an sS becomes a new
and strange basis for the I-parts and turns them into being its
object, instrumentalizes and functionalizes them - a situation
that is prototypical for mental disorders. It may be referred to
as subject-object-reversion because whatever is supposed to be
the object is now the subject and vice versa. As further
consequences in this aspect one can also name
subject-object-split and fusion or identification, which will be
discussed later. In contrast, there is in the first-rate reality
only a sort of difference between the actual subject (God1 or
I-self) and the objects (inner and outer reality) but there is
no splitting. A real splitting only takes place between +A and
‒A. (Analysis of speech/language see
unabridged German version).
Such as the It is in general, the p It also can be
differentiated by:
• origin and kind
• localization
• appearance. [121]
See mainly: 'The It in general'
In a
humorous way (and in the style of Freud) the specific p Its
could be labeled as following: |
And the mental disorders that are caused by them could be jocularly called: absolutitis or totalitis libidinitis destructivitis nihilitis relativitis (more examples: moralitis, collectivitis, individualitis, rationalitis - and all of them can be contagious if one does not pay attention.) |
Since nobody is perfect, - everyone is overstrained to be his own Absolute himself. (→ Ideal-I / narcissism). He is, as mentioned, only absolute in the basic attitude to the Absolute. But if he requires himself to be the basis of his life himself, then the person in question will take a position that is contrary to his nature. Unfortunately, we are often weak, flawed or evil and in these situations we need an Absolute that is stronger than our own person or other people. We need a space in ourselves, an island, a piece of heaven, where we must be allowed to be very weak and helpless, have no responsibility, be beyond good and evil, that is to be just like children - otherwise, we would get sick in these situations or go down. It is the already discussed question, as to whether the adult-I or the child-of-god-I is at the person's center. (→ `Adult-Ego and child-I´) .
See Complex
Personal Dynamics and Relationship Disorders.
E.g. One does not do that - and so you have to make it (normativism).
I believe that the p Its cannot be localized in a
specific area of the brain but they are psychical
complexes that have been materialized and are dominating the
person. Like a web, they are spread throughout multiple areas of
the brain and the body, and have specific “second-rate”
impacts, that will be discussed further later on.
Where can the Its arise? In all realities.
If in a person = personal It; Otherwise, as group-It,
society-It, and so on.
The pers. It is in itself a 'triad' and consists of
three parts (pro +, contra ‒ and 0).
However, it can differently appear
as follows:
- as a monad (with only one effective direction)
- as dyad [`duality'].
- as triad [`trinity']
Even if the p It appears as a monad or dyad, it is `really´
always a triad because the hidden, latent parts have not
disappeared and can be activated at any time.
The personal It appears as a monad, one-sided,
monovalent and monistic if:
1- only one part of the personal It is activated
for example the all or the nothingness, one ‒sS or one +sS etc.
2- two or more parts of the It, or their sides are participating
with each other and only have one effect.
Also representatives of different ideologies often act monadic.
For instance, they pretend to own the one and overarching truth.
Whoever is not on their side, is against them. So with that,
they appear to be all and all else is nothing.
(Also see `Strange-Self
as Dyad ´
with Yin-Yang-symbol).
This
is about the ambivalent personal strange Self, or It, that is
playing an important part in the psychopathology. It
specifically stands for divisiveness, ambivalence, contrast,
contradiction and conflicts.
It partly stands for paradoxes and follies, as well.
The contradictions, divisiveness, or paradoxes may
exist:
1
– In a strange Self or non-Self.
2 – Between different parts of a personal It.
3 – Between two or more sS or Its.
4 – Between an sS or It and an actual Absolute.
About the ambivalence of the p Its:
The p Its are not only structured by the
all-or-nothing-principle but the 'all', the 'totally' is - at
least potentially - a divided unit, split in two (or more)
connected opposites. On the opposite of this split unit (split
into pro-sS and contra-sS), there is on the other hand the
strange nothingness, so that arises like a triangle (triad)
after which p It is primarily structured and in which a
corresponding dynamism takes place.
As mentioned before, the choice of an absolutized ideal also
includes the (unknowingly) choice of the specific opposite (an
anti-ideal) and the deselection of the ideal also includes the
deletion of the anti-ideal - and the other way around. The p
Its, such as the It in general, are very contradicting in their
characteristics.
The ambivalence (or trivalence) of the p Its does not only
explain their complicated dynamics but also explains the
paradoxes and the follies, that can be found in many mental
disorders.
Similar conclusions can be found in the
psychoanalysis. I am thinking of the so-called mixture of drives
in the theory of S. Freud, who believed that the sexual drive
and the death drive are mixed regularly. Alike, Lacan, who said
that the death drive can be found in every other drive.[125]
Similar conclusions can be found in the
psychoanalysis. I am thinking of the so-called mixture of drives
in S. Freud´s theory, who believed that the sexual drive and the
death drive are mixed regularly. Alike, Lacan, who said that the
death drive can be found in every other drive. That becomes
clear when looking at absolutizations of Relatives because
both poles of them fused together (according to the
drive-mixture) but also with oppositely position (which probably
corresponds of Freud's "drive-segregation").
An overview of types of ambivalence is in the unabridged
version.
One can compare psychic disorders with similar
characteristics as the sS resp. p Its: they are of an
independent, "active" and of quasi-personal nature. I think that
with mental disorders, always the Self is affected. In contrast
to changes in the relative sphere, where you find only easy
disturbances.
(Optional chapter. If the reader is only interested in the EMERGENCE OF THE STRANGE, SECOND-RATE PERSONAL see there.)
This chapter is about the general effects of the
Its on different realities resp. worlds: world/ persons and I
(WPI).
For the sake of simplicity I take often `W' alone as a collective term for WPI.
The Its create second-rate realities² (WPI²).
These take a part of the first-rate reality¹ (WPI¹). Therefore, they are connected with a
loss of first-rate reality. Relative
realities become(pseudo)first-rate and the first-rate reality becomes
irrelevant (or subordinate).
But first-rate reality can only temporarily be superseded by
second-rate realities in areas where the It/sA are active. [126]Since the
first-rate reality is stronger than the second-rate realities, the
first-rate reality is never fully gone/lost, so that there are always
first-rate and second-rate areas of reality existing side by side. The
second-rate realities are dominated by one, more, or many Its, that
force their traits on them. One It generates WPI² in its whole domain,
which is about all 23 aspects away with the main effect which the It
itself represents. (For details, see later).
I
often take as
a synonym for second-rate realities = second-rate worlds = W². [128]
The second rate realities include WPI² = [World, Person, I]² [129]
The different phases of emergence of the
second-rate realities can be categorized as follows:
1st phase: Inversion and emergence of the It as
described.
Now: 2nd phase: It produces WPI².
Overview of all It-effects on WPI, see in the Summary
table
! or in the unabridged German version.
So far, we described the It as new strange
dominant, which core is made out of All² (pro/contra) and
Nothingness². [130]
Now we will see, how the It expands and how It causes new
strange realities (W²).
This graphic shows how the It
(including all It-parts) irrupts in the first-rate reality and
what is created by that:
1st The created second-rate reality (here: world, people, I) is
being dominated by the It-parts.
2nd WPI are put in a suppressed, relativized position
(illustrated by the gray shade). They are also changed in the
sense of the respective It - they become `it-similar'. On the
other hand, you can see that WPI is sometimes able to get
something positive from pro-sA-parts (`hyperforms´) because the
It incorporates those parts as well.
3rd The It-parts are in italics to show that they too are
changing. They adapt to the new strange reality, too.
4th The dashed line shows the loss of first-class reality.
5th The inner splittings of the It and also the WPI are
indicated by the solid lines.
The It works in the same way how it is. It is
totally pro or totally contra or totally 0 and causes WPI also
to become too pro, contra or 0. Therefore,
one can speak of a "principle of creation of a too equal, an opposite
and nothingness" in the second-rate realities caused by the Its .
The It determines the specific reality, changes the reality and makes it
similar to the It. The difference, however, is that the action described
occurs at the expense of the units affected, since this process is
associated with a loss of prime reality, even though it seduces the
oppressed person with greater benefit in the beginning.
Different Its determine in the form of the prevailing zeitgeist various
groups or societies or generations.
The following spheres of these second-rate realities
(WPI²) shall be distinguished:
1. The It (as a dominant center).
2. The sphere dominated by the It, which can be subdivided into:
Pro-sphere (= + hyper-forms with Co-forms, participants,
functionaries, followers, accomplices).
Contra-sphere (with opponents).
0 sphere, negated or sacrificed sphere.
The individual spheres overlap.
[Basic possibilities of deviation from the optimal
probably reflect a similar classification:
too much (= pro-forms or hyper-forms), false (= contra-forms) and
0 (nothing).
Incidentally, I think that the mental disorders discussed later
have similar patterns, too.]
Chronological sequence: At the beginning, there is a
pro-dynamic: The It first forms a pro-sphere (+ hyper-forms) in WPI -
but at the cost of first-rate reality. Its loss causes the formation
of the + hyper-forms, which finally become so expensive that the
system² tips over to the opposite (contra or 0 forms). (→ • Reversal
into the opposite)
Generally formulated: pairs of opposites* exist at the expense of
first-rate reality. If a pole* is too expensive, it turns into an
opposite
(or vice versa). The system² can oscillate between two extremes until
it dies or finds an emergency solution or the actual solution.
For examples, see in `Complex
Personal Dynamics and Relationship Disorders´.
Important:
1. All Its require sacrifices.
2. The sacrificial-sphere of WPI is getting bigger throughout the
process because the Its are using WPI to stay alive and to stay
dominant.
In the second-rate realities, the Its are like dictators with
their helpers, that dominate everything else in their territory.
They also
can be
compared to parasites/ viruses/ demons - depending on their
respective properties. The Its force their programs onto the
realities, usually by using the principle of all-or-nothing.
Just as the examples demonstrate, they act in various ways.
Sometimes their actions are paradoxical or contradicting, but
they are never solely negatively. Especially in the beginning,
their effects appear to be very positive. In the long run
however, they become disturbing and pathogenic. Everything is
subordinated to them: the truth, the freedom, the reality, other
people and finally the affected reality resp. person itself.
Although the person seems to be heightened in the beginning,
he/she ends up being degraded.
(The It as offender and the Person as victim see below).
There are rigid hierarchies from It/sA to its R, as
well from It/sA to other It/sA. (Typical for W²).
Second-rate systems of our inside can be compared to Totalitarian
states: There is a central, powerful It that dominates everything,
such as a dictator. One level below that, there are contributors/
participants/ functionaries, and on the bottom are powerless people,
who are receiving the orders.
The system is very sensitive: If only one of the participants is being
questioned or attacked, the whole system is endangered. Therefore it
reacts accordingly hard and merciless but it also sacrifices its own
contributors if necessary.
The It subjugates its own Relatives like subjects. Although it gives
them a second-rate center/sense/support, it takes away their
independence. The new strange Relatives have to sacrifice themselves
for the It if there is any kind of hazard. An It however, will never
sacrifice itself for its own members. However, in the end, the It is
also powerless if it is without its Relatives, its subordinates. It
can be compared to other systems that collapse as soon as their center
disappears (domino effect).
Thus, the Its are overpowering as well as powerless, (pseudo)absolute
and irrelevant at the same time.
(Compare to Therapeutic
Goals / Value Hierarchies of the first-rate reality).
• The Its affect not
only the individual but also entire societies - ultimately
our world as a whole. (More later.)
• The Its change WPI in
their sense. That WPI becomes `It-similar. (Just as the
other hand, It adapts to WPI).
• The It-effects
are not total but they are all the stronger
and pathogenic, the larger the difference is
between the sA and +A.
• The Its work beyond their own aspect.
All Its cause changes in all of the 7 aspects of dimension and
in all of the 4 main aspects of differentiation.
The It of a certain aspect also causes the main changes/defaults
in its specific aspect, whereas It causes side effects but
also facultative effects in all the other aspects. Example:
Absolutization of truth has a special impact concerning the
question true or false but it also has an impact on all the
other aspects. Suppose a family has absolutized truth, then the
family is subjected to the dictates of unconditioned
truth-telling. This sA truth* will then also determine certain
spheres of being, life, the qualities and relationships (BLQC)
of the family. Also, two opposite poles, which can be called
"lie" and "indifference” arise.
In addition, two opposite poles, which can be called "lie" and
"indifference” arise. (See
the section `Spreading
and compression´).
• All
Its can have all results - also positive ones All Its
are principally able to cause any kind of second-rate forms.
All Its have all kinds of results, negative and positive
results. I.e. a ‒It may cause +² and a +It may cause ‒².
Therefore, the reverse side of a ‒It can have positive effects
and the reverse side of a +It can have negative effects. For
example: I am not allowed to feel good, I am not allowed to
accept love, love is negative;
If I am being hated it is positive. Or illness* is giving
identity² or sense² and so on.
Also: Every It may cause illness, as well as health. Although
the It usually causes illness.
The contradicting effects of the Its are important for
understanding the paradoxes and certain psychopathologies.
“I
am the spirit of always saying no...” Mephisto in Faust
With regard to the It-effect in this aspect, one can formulate:
It negates, disturbs or hyper-absolutizes WPI.
→ “Victory
of the Relative over the Absolute”.
Referring to the It-effects in this aspect, one can formulate:
It derealizes, falsifies or
over-realizes the spheres of reality that are dominated by It.
(More in `Disorder
of the person's identity´)
Referring to the It-effects in this aspect, one can formulate:
It derealizes,
falsifies or
over-realizes the spheres of reality that are dominated by It.
Hypotheses: Not only the It in this aspect but also all the Its of the
other aspects cause some sort of loss or falsification of reality.
Artificial realities are being created and the actual reality will be
experienced as falsified or negated. On the other side, a part of
reality can become one-sided or unambiguous (`hyper-reality´) due to
hyper-realization.
Referring to the It-effects in this aspect, one can formulate:
It chaotisizes or
splits or fuses subordinated areas of reality. (More in `Disorder
of the person's unity´)
The Its in this aspect unsettle, misprogram
or determine and fix.
Thus, the corresponding Its generate fixations, cause
unconditionals, provide preconditions, urge, admit no exception
-
and on the other hand: Its release and forsake WPI.
The Its in this aspect uproot or level, dislocate
or make extremes.
Its make actual priorities as second-rate or negate them.
They also generate "hyper-centers" and "hyper-causes" (e.g., in
the form of false causes).
Also: Results will become causes/ and causes become results or
nothing.
The It/sA are often like exponents: They potentiate a negative
or a positive situation.
The Its of this aspect also have effects of Its of the other
dimension aspects.
All Its also lead to more or less great loss of overview
meta-level/ "horizon".
Parallel in the literature: "The lost horizon" by James
Hilton.
WPI become due to the Its more or false dependent or -independent and the Its dominate and automatize WPI-parts.
|
Sacrificial-sphere |
Disturbance-sphere |
|
Being |
It destroys |
It materializes |
It ideologizes |
„It always happens the same in history: an ideal, an elevated idea coarsens itself, is materialized.“ (B. Pasternak)
The Its disturb and mistake matter
and spirit.
The Its destroy,
materialize (reification) or ideologize WPI
That means that mechanical or physical laws and patterns often
are foregrounded and dominate the spirit in the second-rate
realities that are determined by Its. It also means, that the
second-rate being is mainly too material, objective and tangible
and that the realities are more monotonous and mechanized.
People who are so constituted come close to robots and machines,
and have corresponding dynamics (↑ functions)
- or it is a being full of 'strange spirits' or it is both, side
by side.
(See also corresponding experience in a psychosis, for example,
later on).
About II. Disturbance and Reversal of Life
The Its disturb and confuse life and functions.
The basic impacts in this aspect
are:
The Its gain life and vitality and WPI only
function or die. (reversal of life and
functioning).
Only in the role of a participant, WPI will be
hyper-vitalized.
About III. Disturbance and Reversal of Qualities
The Its disturb and confuse the qualities.
The Its in this aspect have gained absolute quality,
whereas WPI only receives a relative quality or no quality
at all.
They disqualify or misqualify WPI. The misqualification
may also contain that they put WPI in a role of a participant
and then WPI will be of oversized, quasi-absolute importance.
That importance can be positively or negatively connoted. The
reversal of qualification may also consist of the reversal of
negative and positive or other qualities.
About IV: Disturbance and Reversal of Subjects, Objects and Contexts
The Its disturb and confuse subjects and objects.
Due to reversal, the Its as original objects became subjects and
cause now original subjects (especially persons) to become
objects. The person is no longer the master in its own house.
This Subject-object-reversal
will be discussed more when talking about the It-effects on a
person.
The Its in this aspect also cause mistakes of the connections:
Relative connections become unconditional, absolute connections
(e.g.,: guilt - punishment) and relative disconnections become
absolute.
That causes misconnections and misseparations to appear.
“Since Copernicus, man seems to have got himself on an inclined plane -
now he is slipping faster and faster away from the center into - what? into nothingness?” F. Nietzsche
The main effect in this aspect is: the Its negate and destroy.
More specifically: They create All² but especially nothing².
As ideologies, they mainly appear in the shape of
totalitarianism, reductionism and nihilism. They alter WPI
especially in a nihilistic, total and reductionistic way, so
that WPI is being negated, destroyed, isolated, or (as a
participant and functionary ) totalized.
This mainly causes a loss of first-rate all and individual.
Therefore, the reality appears to be emptied, isolated or
totalized. The splitting can be called
'all-or-nothing-splitting'. The It 'claims' all* or nothing*.
An example of that would be the digitization of the world, of
life with all its advantages and disadvantages.
If objects are digitized, it has rather advantages but the
digitalization of the person originates considerable
disadvantages because the living is lost.
2. Profanation
The main effect in this aspect is: the Its profane.
The Its as ideologies, especially in the shape of superstition,
spirituality, secularism and atheism profane, demonize or
idolize WPI. WPI thereby loses above all first-rate the positive
Absolute (God, love, sense) and thereby there originates a state
of godlessness, lovelessness and futility or strange gods.
3. Reification and False Personification
The main effect in this aspect is: the Its
(especially personal Its) reify the personal and personalize themselves[132]
or other things. (Further see the Disorder of person and things.)
4. Deindividualization
The main effect in this aspect is: the Its de- / misindividualize or hyper-individualize.
5. Despiritualization
The main effect in this aspect is: The Its causes soullessness
and spiritlessness and somatize (themselves or something).
The Its negate or even kill actual spiritual, mental or
psychical areas or change them. Spiritlessness and soullessness
are being created in certain systems (e.g.: something becomes
senseless, spiritless or is being ideologized.) It-effects of
this aspect can be found in all of the ideologies. Especially
they can be found in the spiritual sphere as a consequence of
spiritualism, in the psychical sphere as a consequence of
psychologism, and in the physical sphere as a consequence of the
so-called healthism.
Detailed
representation concerning the person see chapter `It-effects
on P´.
Many social systems
show some of the features of the named It-effects. For example:
splittings in poor and rich; powerful and powerless; alive and
killed and so on, or in the shape of contrary social orders like
communism/capitalism; or in the form of deadly ideologies that
may cause consequences like the Holocaust, genocides, racism,
nationalism and so on. They are also made up like the
all-or-nothing-principle resp. pro- or contra-principle and can
be divided into disturbing-sphere, participant-sphere and
sacrificial-sphere.
As mentioned before, all of the second-rate realities show the
named characteristics and this the more, the more a negative
became positively absolutized or a positive negatively
absolutized.
Otherwise put: In a society, where brutality, contempt of
mankind, aggression, war (and so on) is viewed positively and
opposite trends are suppressed at the same time, the negative
characteristics of the second-rate reality will be seen more and
more. A society, where humanity and peace (etc.) are being
valued, and that therefore is very similar to an actual positive
world, is less divided and less disturbed. However, here on
earth, no society can be formed that is perfect and without the
named second-rate characteristics.
It/sA and their consequences can also be found
outside of the person in different environments.
Example: Ecological damage, armories (etc.), as results of the
It/sA and with effect on the person.
Concerning families see later in `Personal
system and relationship disorders´.
The virtual worlds, that are gaining importance, also belong here if they dominate the person.
Important mindsets,
ideologies, or religions belong here if they dominate the
person. They are not the bad/evil themselves because they also
have positive parts. They are determined by collective strange
Absolutes. They should not be fought but criticized and a person
should pay attention to them and should try to integrate the
positive aspects.
In human history, there were many misabsolutizations. Usually,
they can be recognized as the named ideologies including their
advantages and disadvantages. They are forms and aspects that
are always created in new ways that are still the same
eventually and that are all representing the same or similar
'games'.
The most important ideologies have already been mentioned.[133] Especially the social
sciences, mostly the social psychiatry and the systematic
therapies focus on these topics. In contrast to them, I will try
to present known problems from a new perspective.
I repeat that I am convinced that the mentioned second-rate
forms and their dynamics cannot just be found in a general form
(environment etc.) but also within the person (and they are both
connected to each other). Here as well as there they are
essential foundations for diseases and just as one can speak of
sick people, one can also speak of sick (and disease-causing)
societies and environments.
The listed terms are meant to be understood as keywords - More can be gathered from the following chapters about the person or the Summary table.
So far, we briefly discussed the emergence and the general effects of the Its. Now, the effects of the Its on the person will be illustrated more detailed because it´s for our topic most important.[134]
Hint: For the sake of variety, I sometimes only speak of one It, sometimes of Its in the plural or of three I-parts (pro +, contra ‒, 0).The effects
of the Its on the person are very similar to the effects of the
Its on reality in general. The main difference is that the
person has direct access to the absolute-sphere. That means that
P has an absolute choice. In contrast to that, non-personal
subjects do not have the choice to accept nor to reject an
inversion. Only the choice and/or the identification with an
inversion can lead to the emergence of a personal It.
In essence, then something becomes personal and personal becomes
like something.
As well as the It
changes parts of the reality after his picture, as
described on top, it also changes parts of the person after his
picture. In this chapter we will discuss how the It forces its
characteristics onto the person. I will call this general
change person-It-Reversal. The It gets quasi-personal
characteristics and becomes like a person and forces its
characteristics onto the person. Those changed personal spheres
will be called second-rate personal = P². But besides
these changed, strange personal areas, there will always be
'healthy' P¹ parts remaining, which is very important for the
therapy.
Person¹ |
⬌ |
It |
absolute |
⬌ |
relative |
Division into: |
P² = the strange personal |
DIMENSION |
|
area A R 0 |
strange Self (sS) pers. pro or participants, functionaries or pers. contra parts non-Self and sacrificial-part |
rank 2. 0 |
P° |
orientation + − 0 |
‒P² with front-, reverse-, 0-side victim-area with front- and 2 reverse-sides. |
DIFFERENTIATION |
|
B L Q C |
strange being of P² strange life of P² strange qualities of P² strange
connections of P²: |
UNITS |
|
W P I |
strange world-view of P² strange things of others in P² my strange I / my ego |
further aspects |
e.g.,
strange possessions, strange works, strange information
of P². |
In this table, `strange' is only a key word
for all possible second-rate characteristics.
Further see Summary
table
column O-S.
• The It
in this publication, is very similar to what is understood when
using the term homunculus. I mentioned it already. The It and
homunculus are similar when it comes to the idea of something being
created within us that has personal characteristics, especially a
certain autonomy, that cannot be directly willingly influenced by
the person.
• The similarity of an It, or of a homunculus to a person is the
greatest when the It represents a real person (e.g., when another
person was idealized by the affected person.) Also see: causes for Hallucinations.-
Depending on how useful or harmful the homunculus is within us, it
effects like a dictator and tyrant, a virus or a parasite. But the
best-case scenario is that it lives within us as a symbiont. In that
case, it is neither the good nor the bad.
• The `homunculus´ usually has
a complicated structure formed of different Its that operate jointly
on the one hand and fight and hinder each other on the other hand.
Every It/sA disturbs
more or less all 7 dimension aspects (DM) of the person.
They disturb above all the
right of self-determination, the identity, the authenticity,
the uniqueness, the unity, the unconditional dignity, the
right to live, the independence and the freedom. It can be
compared to a disorder of the general human rights.
The Its, which affect
this aspect, have a nihilistic or relativistic or absolutistic
character. That means:
- they negate the personal Absolute, or
- they relativize the personal Absolute, which will also be
alienated, divided, suppressed, falsified and insane, or
- they may also hyper-absolutize the absolute-area of a
person. For example by idolization of a certain part of the
person.
The main effect of the Its on people is their negation. With that, the person loses the first-rate personality, the Self and other connected characteristics on the territory of an It.
- P loses more than he/she gains
An It was created as
follows: mainly too pro (hyper) too strange resp. contrary,
less 0.
The impacts of the Its on P are the other way around: The
focus is on the negation of P, then there is the alienation
and creation of opposites, and then there is a little bit of
pro-participation. That means that the It mostly steals parts
of the person and only gives back a little part. Therefore,
the It is mainly acting as an offender and the person is
mainly the victim.
- The loss of one aspect also means the loss of other aspects.
For example: The loss of
identity is also a loss of security, reality, unity of a person,
their priority and basis, their independence; and also means the
loss of first-rate spirit, live, quality, subjectivity and so on -
but also first-rate relative areas are being lost.
The Its of this aspect
mostly cause P to become too uniform, alienated, or
hyper-identified.
Ideologies of this aspect would be uniformism, determinism and
philosophies of identity. Everyday examples are sentences like “you
are just like your mother”, “you are a blighter”, “you are the
greatest” (and similar).
In this aspect, I also discuss the following topics because they are essentially related to identity:
1. Transformation and alienation
2. The emergence of paradoxes.
1.
Transformation and Alienation
In our life we are
confronted with the phenomenon that everything that is
psychically relevant can be transformed.
In a passive direction, from outside to inside: For example:
consequences of other people's actions can be internalized.
In the active direction, from the inside out: Physical or
psychical things are expressed in actions and functions.
There are many changes on the way from outside to inside or
vice versa.
We can also find analogous
changes in the language.
I want to give a specific example of that. Suppose someone is raised
in a chaotic family, then he can become chaotic.
If we analyze the process, we will find out that there are four
steps.
1st step: The parents confuse the affected
person.
2nd step: The person is getting confused.
3rd step: The person is confused.
4th step: The person is chaotic.
Let us also consider the additional, following steps:
5th step: The strange Self (sS) (here: the confusion*) acts in him:
It disorders and dissolves him and
6th step: a) P disintegrates and b) and his actions become more
disordered and irregular.
What happened? To answer that in a very basic way, one could say
that the parent's behavior causes something to emerge within the
affected person. Something, that acts by itself and causes the
person to malfunction and act false.
The analysis of language
shows the change in a similar way: A verb (to confuse) becomes
substantive (the confusion) which makes a verb again. More
specifically: 1st step: verb (to confuse) → 2nd: processual passive
(getting confused) → 3rd: participle (is confused) → 4th: adjective
(chaotic) and a new substantive (the confusion) → 5th step: The
strange Self (sS) (here: the confusion*) acts in him: it disorders
and chaotizises him and 6th: a) processual verbs (the person
disintegrates) with b) new adverb (actions and procedures become
more disordered and irregular).
The sequence illustrates how in the person concerned strange-new can
originate, which affects by itself (!) and changes our actions and
functions. The actions also get a too functional character because
they don’t come from the real I-self, like the first-rate actions
but from strange Selves resp. strange-Egos.
Broadly speaking: The I-self lives above all but the strange-Ego
functions or reacts more.
Just as a quick reminder, I believe that the described changes are
only possible if the absolute sphere of the person is disturbed. An
actual Absolute compensates such disturbances.
Disturbances are caused seldom by one sA only but more often by many
sA with corresponding mainly negative actions. Example: One cannot
only be confused because he / she has been confused by others but
also because the person has become disoriented, oppressed,
disenfranchised, devalued, infantilized etc.
a)
From the inside towards the outside: The behavior of a person is alienated by strange-Selves (sS) in the person (P). |
b)
Exterior signals are being alienated by strange-Selves
(sS) of a person, too. |
2. About the Emergence of Paradoxes
I saw various things that looked the same Hypotheses Paradoxes may occur:
1. Due to inversion, when first-rate aspects become second-rate
aspects or when second-rate aspects become
first-rate.
2. If sA change their characteristics,
a) if one or more equal sA become contrary,
b) if one or more contrary sA become equally.
This Fig. is intended to show that one sA has three parts
that are quite oppositely connoted, and that the 3 opposing sA can
have the same connotation if a backside is activated. That
paradoxically, one can experience the same sA quite opposite,
and a contra-sA just like a pro-sA, if its backside is activated.
Or you can also experience a pro-sA and a contra-sA as 0.
The It that
mainly affects this aspect comes from ideologies like realism,
objectivism and positivism.
It is hyper-realistic, false and deceptive or unreal.
It effects on P or parts of him:
1- It derealizes person.
2. It distorts and inverses a person´s reality and causes a
contradiction between different realities.
3. It hyper-realizes a person. P often has a compensatory-profit
then, by a new personal reality that appears to be positive in
the beginning.
An It paradoxically causes the affected person to view unreal
aspects of him/herself as real and real aspects as unreal.
(See also: Splittings and fusions in Schizophrenia).
The
It fuses with parts of the person or fuses different parts with
each other. It is as if parts of the person are being compressed
and merged. That may cause a feeling of being a compact
wholeness, that saves the person from being divided. Although
this may be the case temporarily, splittings are encouraged in
the long term by the fusions. Fusions and splittings occur side
by side or alternately.
What can be split (see the section below) can also be fused by
the It. (E.g., subject-object-fusion, fusions of different
objects, etc.)
About Splittings
(This topic reappears when discussing Schizophrenia).
Inversions can lead to splittings in all known
areas:
This means that there can be divisions in all aspects of the
dimensions and differentiations.
(eg: subject-object-split, matter-spirit-split or
soul-body-split).
Like a single person, so a whole group of people, a society
(like any system) can be split (and also fused, suppressed,
scared etc.).A relative difference is made to the absolute
opposite. There is then only absolutely true or absolutely
untrue, right or wrong, black or white, pro or contra, only good
or evil, only all or nothing, only friend or enemy, only for me
or against me, either perpetrator or victim, strong or
powerless, saints or whores, and so on.
Double messages, paradoxes, contradictions (or similar) are
caused by splittings. Messages that are too one-sided or too
general are caused by fusions.
The main splittings or breaking points within P:
The main splittings in P²:
1. between the first-rate P¹ and the
second-rate P².
2. between the all and the nothingness of P².
3. between the pro- and contra-parts of all.
Additional splittings are possible between
all parts of P²
Briefly about Subject-Object-Splittings
Due to an inversion, a
first-rate subject becomes an object. Or it may only function as
second-rate subject, as strange-I and also
loses the connection to its original first-rate objects.
That causes a splitting within the subject-area into a
first-rate and a second-rate subject, as well as a splitting of
the strange subject and a first-rate object. Between a
first-rate subject and second-rate objects emerge only relative
contradictions because the first-rate subject can tolerate
second-rate objects.
Briefly about the Emergence of Opposites
Inversions cause
opposites: [139]
Consequence: Side by side of opposites:
narcissism # self-hate
fear # lust
hate # love²
too much proximity # too much distance etc.
(You can read the possible opposites in all aspects in the Summary table in column N. They are marked there on the one hand by ↓ and on the other hand by ↑. Otherwise see also `It-parts, opposites ...´).
1. This It makes the
person insecure. It causes a loss of safety and freedom.
2. It misprograms the person. It sets up demands on P. It
forces, compels and does not allow exceptions.
3. It causes hyper-safety and hyper-freedoms.
Its are like golden cages within our soul.
Possible ideologies: Dogmatism, determinism, partly skepticism,
libertinism.
1. The It
uproots and levels P. It steals the person´s actual basis.
2. It twists and falsifies the personal basis: what used to be
peripheral, will be the basis and what used to be the original
basis will be the new strange periphery. On the one hand the It
uproots and undermines the personal base and causes a
displacement of P on the periphery. On the other hand It
establishes many new centers. It results in a mix-up of center
and periphery.
3. It forms also personal hyper-centers. The person has
compensatory-profit with such new strange personal centers.
Possible ideologies: fundamentalism, radicalism, extremism,
eccentricity.
Always there is a loss or a disorder of the first-rate personal
center/ base.
Also: All inversions resp. It/sA cause more or less of a loss of
“height”/ overview/ meta level/ horizon.[140]
About the Reversal of Causes (Problem Shifting)
The Its shift causes and problems. Then we don´t ask, for example, anymore for the real causes of our illnesses but only for secondary causes. (Further see `Causes and Results´ in Metapsychology).
1. The Its cause the
person to be dependent. They steal the person's autonomy as well
as good ties. Or
2. The Its inverse and alienate the personal autonomy and ties.
Or
3. The Its form hyper-autonomous centers (keyword:
"self-running") and form new independent spheres.
The person has a substitute gain by this new strange autonomy -
or P has the expensive advantage that he/she no autonomy must
venture, no responsibility must take over.
Possible ideologies: determinism, evolutionism, philosophy of
immanence.
In general, there will be a loss/ disorder of person´s autonomy
and tie.
Main
disorders:
1. The Its destroy
the personal being, or
2. The Its cause a disorder, reversal or alienation of the
personal being. They create new strange personal being. They
change the personal being in their sense. Then the personal
being is similar to the being of the Its.
3. The Its create personal hyper-forms.
1. The Its kill, or reduce life,
or
2. The Its disturb, twist and falsify our life. That life is
similar to the life of the Its. They replace living with
functioning and role behavior.
3. The Its cause above all at the beginning hyper vitality,
"hyper-life", hyper-activities.
The person appears especially as an automat, machine, official,
apparatchik, role player and life seems dead and dead things
appear alive.[141]
1. The Its disqualify the person.
The result is a loss of primary personal qualities.
2. The Its change the qualities of the person, above all because
they falsify these, twist and disturb.
3. The Its can cause personal hyper-qualities - as a rule, linked with accordingly raised
emotions.
Paradoxes due to reversal of Qualities
The
sensations of various qualities of P² do not match the actual
qualities. In this way, something negative can be perceived and
handled positively and something positive negatively.
For example: Illness is better than health, the object-role is
better than the subject-role, matter is more important than
soul, things/objects are more important than people.
Two Kinds of Luck (and Misfortune) in Two Kinds of Realities
"First I make you happy," says the ideal "but then I will kill you!"
In the first reality rules the `holy spirit´. In the
second-rate realities, something rules what one could call „ (un) holy
substance". The „holy spirit" is God1,
is love. What, however, would be the „ (un) holy substance" after
which we often thirst more than after the Holy Spirit? These are our
+Its which are like drugs or symbionts in us, on which we are
dependent because they give us something that we believe to need
absolutely.
It is known, that endorphin and dopamine are being released in certain
moments of joy. Those hormones can be compared to the substance that
we can receive from our Its.
What do the two kinds of luck look like?
1. the actual luck: has no costs, comparable to luck through love.
2. strange 'luck' such as libido, ecstasy, rush, high, flow and thrill
is addicting and therefore there is a cost.
That kind of luck is dependent on different substances, situations or
people. They promise “speed” and “power”, they “boost”. The dynamics
are marked with all-or-nothing, with a highly increasing +² curve,
that is soon to be decreasing and to drop into the negative if there
is no new “stuff” being given.
I believe that anything that is positively absolutized can cause an
addiction.
Especially the non-substance
addictions are underestimated!
[I heard again and again from job addicts that their
job is their hobby and their fun. What could be wrong with that?]
Only the
actual +A has no potential to be addicting and even gives heavenly
luck.
P² can perceive happiness as misfortune or misfortune as happiness, as
'black happiness' (Victor Hugo) when the misfortune affects others.
Two
Kinds of Misfortune:
In parallel, I am convinced that
there are also two kinds of misfortune: the actual and the strange. By that I
mean that we regard relative misfortune as absolute misfortune when we
are dominated by a ‒sA
/ It.
An example would be the loss of the mentioned (pseudo-) absolute
happiness. In
itself, P¹ would not have to fear earthly misfortune.
The absolute misfortune is only the negative Absolute (‒A).
1. The Its
desubjectivize, which means that P loses his/her first-rate
subject-role.
The Its destroy or chain up personal connections.
2. The Its inverse, alienate and disorder P in his/her role as
subject: They turn P into an object.
→
Subject-object-reversal).
'
P² appears as object.
The Its make misconnections: Incoherent topics become coherent
and vice versa.
3. The Its create personal hyper-subjects and function as such.
(Also: Its create hyper-objects).
Here, an
important characteristic of the It/sA, or the strange Self is
represented. They now take the position of a quasi-personal,
living subject and P/I on the other side, takes the position of
an object - a situation that is typical for mental disorders.
[142]
This process can be referred to as subject-object-reversal
because whatever is usually the object, became subject and
whatever is usually the subject, became an object. [143] It is the (limited) ”victory”
of the object over the subject, or
the dictatorship of
the objects. Who is
actually acting, when someone says “I” am acting? Is it the I or
is it an It?
The subject-object-reversal also causes a change of the characteristics of the new subject and the new object:
The original object does not become a "real" subject but a kind
of subject, a second-rate subject. It plays the role of a
subject but is not a real subject and can therefore be termed a
"subjectoid" or "sobject" (meaning a pseudo-subject). Or the
original object becomes a false object, a kind of
"objectoid". The same applies to the original subject, who can
neither be a real subject nor a real object but becomes a
second-class subject or object. Both are hermaphrodites.
As a
rule, a second-rate subject (subjectoid) is an object of one's own (or
other people's) ideals.
Such a second-rate subject can only see objects in other subjects and
handles them as such.
A second-rate personal / ego is usually the object of his own (or
other people's) ideals.
Due to the
subject-object-reversal, the original first-rate connection of
subject-object is lost and a subject-object-splitting
applies.
Besides the subject-object-splitting, there are subject-object-fusions, since the Its resp. strange-Selves cause
splittings as well as fusions.
In relationships, the It mainly acts in the role of a
(pseudo-)first-rate subject. That means that the It can directly
cause processes, without P being able to influence it. In
addition to dysfunctions, behavioral disorders are the result:
behavior that is not (or only partially) influenced by P, so
that the person feels powerless and controlled by extraneous
power (especially in schizophrenia).
There is a parallel between subject-object splitting
and God-world-splitting.
Disorder and Reversal of Bonding and Separation
“The It
misconnects, replaces, separates.”
With that, there are disorders of connections/ relationships
etc. on the one side, and separation, splitting etc. on the
other side.
There are new, strange connections/ relationships. (E.g.,: there
are new problems at places where they do not belong, solutions
are brought up where there are no possible solutions etc.)
Loose
relations become weldings, knots, chains: The Its create
connections that are too stiff and automatic in shape of
processes, procedures, automatisms etc. Examples: order and
obedience; mistake and punishment; interpersonal: “tit-for-tat”,
etc. There are also determinant connections that seem to be
similar, such as it is described as chain of associations in
psychoanalysis.
(Relative) separations, differences become absolute splittings
or unrelatednesses.
Where there was a connection/relation, there is now separation.
Where there were splitting and difference there is now
fusion/welding. The
associated symptoms play a major role in neurosis and
psychosis ("craziness"). The
"atypical connectivity" in autism could also arise in this
way.
In the following paragraphs, I want to discuss some single aspects more detailed.
1. The Its profane.
They negate and replace God1 and
love. They cause a loss of transcendence, of God1,
love and sense.
C. G. Jung was convinced that the “loss of soul and sense” was
the main problem of the modern world. According to him, about
one-third of his clients were affected by the “pointlessness and
lack of relevance of their life”.
2. The Its of this aspect pervert and falsify transcendence (God1)
and immanence (the “world”). On the other hand, earthly, worldly
matters are being idolized or demonized. It is the “Victory
of immanence over transcendence.”
If we live in inverted roles or worlds, we are
people without heaven, without transcendence, without God1 whose
foundations are undermined, only because we trust the strange
more than the real and have for it got false gods and false
devils.
Such as the subject-object-reversal, the God-world-reversal is
not only connected to a negation and a change of God and world
but also a God-world-splitting, or a God-world-fusion.
3. The Its may also cause an excessive and one-sided
transcendence and immanence (→ asA).
The P-changes
considering the three P²-areas in this aspect can be illustrated
as follows:
1. The Its depersonalize
P. The result is a loss of first-rate personality.
2. The Its inverse and alienate the person and the things.
Therefore the things will dominate the person.
“Victory of the things over the person”, KW: “factual
constraint”.
3. The Its may cause hyper-personal or hyper-things.
About the Person-Thing-Reversal
An original
thing has been personalized, whereas the person has been
depersonalized and reified.
Therefore whatever used to be “thing” or “object”, is now
personal and the other way around.
The person also feels like a thing (an instrument, machine,
puppet etc.) and/or like a strange person (represented by the
dominating It) and/or like a nobody. [144]
The reversal leads to a mechanization of the person and to a
humanization of the machine = alienation of the original human /
alienation of the original machine.
Such as the subject-object-reversal, the person-thing-reversal
does not only cause a negation and a change of person and thing
and a person-thing-splitting, but it also causes a
person-thing-fusion.
(See more about `Person-It-reversal´
and The Subject-object-reversal´).
The following single aspects are part
of the Summary
table and are only discussed briefly.
All Its change the personal aspects (as already described) in
three basic kinds of ways:
1. The Its negate
the first-rate aspects.
2. The Its falsify (~)
the aspects.
3. The Its cause specific hyper-forms.
The main effects of It are negation and falsification of the
person.
Positive hyper-forms are especially found at the beginning of an
inversion because they seduce the person.
One-dimensional It-effects are very rare. Most
of
the time, multiple, contradicting personal forms are created
simultaneously.
Note: The partly named ideologies stand
for many, often still more important unnamed
individual or familial ideologies!
(Further ideologies can be found in the Summary Table
column E)
Here one can find the Ego-other
inversion: Through an inversion, the Ego becomes like others and
others become like me.
There is not only a negation and change of the Ego and the others, but
also a split between the Ego and the others or the fusion of both.
"Everyone is the other and nobody is himself" (M. Heidegger)
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table columns O-S row 4.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in
question: egocentrism, individualism / collectivism / non- /
conformism.
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
de-individualized misindividualized hyper-individualized |
↓ I,
individuality/community → loss of I, loss of you
~ strange
I ↑ Ego (Super- or Hyper-Ego) |
There is not only a negation and change
of mind, soul and body, but also their reversal, division and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table columns O-S row 5.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in
question: spiritism, psychologism, healthism, materialism, idealism.
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
de-spiritualized,
lifeless somatized, misinspirited ideologized |
↓ spirit,
body, mind → loss of spirit, body, mind ~ strange spirit, body, mind ↑ hyper-forms, ideologies |
The Its in this aspect represent above
all new foreign determining "genders" or gender roles.
The Its appear mainly castrating or sexisting. To be more precise: The
It has a castrating and negligent effect or too masculinizing or too
femininizing or too sexualizing. There is a loss of actual sexuality,
love or sexuality. The person becomes too neutral, sterile, asexual or
hypersexualized or too masculine, too feminine or too hermaphrodite.
The resulting deficits are partly compensated by substitute sexuality
or love, by inverted gender roles.
There is not only a negation and change of the mentioned aspects, but
also their reversal, division and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table columns O-S row 6.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in
question: macho / feminism / sexism / women- / men- hostile or
absolutizing ideologies. (As a side effect possible through most
ideologies).
(→
Overly Equals and Opposites in Relationships).
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
neutered feminized, masculinized sexualized |
↓ sex,
love, gender → without sex, without love ~ sex, love, gender e.g.,: spare-sex, spare-love ↑ hyper-forms (e.g.,: excessive sex) |
P
becomes |
loss and replacement |
unsatisfied numbed frightened doped |
↓
conditions, emotions → apathy/insensibility, sorrow ~ compensatory-conditions, -emotions, inversed fear ↑ hyper-forms like thrill, kick etc. |
The Its determine our feelings.
They forbid us to be happy without them. The It says, “Only
with me, only when you have me, you can be happy.”
And we can't just instantly and directly abolish the tyranny
of the It and feel like we actually do are.
→ kicks, mini-manias also in everyday life and the opposite:
depression, anxiety.'
There is not only a negation and change of feelings, but
also a reversal and their division and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see
Summary table
columns O-S row 7.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar
attitudes in question: hedonism, optimism / pessimism,
materialism/ idealism esp. romanticism.
Here is also the problem of
voluntariness.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms of will
and motivations, but also a reversal of them and their splitting and
fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table
columns O-S row 8.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in
question: Voluntarism, partly Intentionalism / “no-go” ideologies,
existential philosophies et al.
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
demotivated mis-motivated hyper-motivated |
↓
will, voluntariness, goal → abulia/lack of will ~ mis-aspiration, false will, addiction ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: hyperbulia, also addictions |
Patient: “I am overwhelmed and buried again and again and
have to dig my way out every day.”
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms of
ownership, but also their reversal, division and merger.
For
further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table
columns
O-S row 9.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question: capitalism, mercantilism, asceticism.
See also Erich Fromm: Being and having.
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
exploited indulged supersaturated |
↓ ownership
→ lack, defaults ~ false owning ↑ hyper-forms: overloading, hyperphagia |
There is not only a negation and change
of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table columns O-S row 10.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in
question: imperialism, behaviorism, pacifism et al.
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
weakened, overwhelmed misconditioned hyper-, mis-exponentiated |
↓ possibility,
power → powerlessness, weakness ~ mis-conditioning, false ability ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: “omnipotence” |
It is not only the negation and change
of the various forms, but also to their reversal, splitting and
merging.
P² must maintain + fA and avoid −fA and nothing.
If P² does not achieve this goal, she will have to work harder until
she collapses.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table columns O-S row 11.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in
question: dogmatism, bureaucratism, technocracy / anarchism.
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
disordered
disorganized
forced,
compelled |
↓ order,
law → disorder, chaos ~ false order, laws, necessities ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: determination, being fixed |
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
disorientated, distracted ; mis-regulated, manipulated tempted |
↓ direction
→ lack of direction ~ mis-direction ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: moralism |
At present, a 'great distraction' through a wide variety of media
plays a special role.
Result: loss of orientation, overview, and disorientation; Or:
one-sided, fixed orientations.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also
their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For
further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table
columns
O-S
row 12.
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
blocked,
inhibited mis-regulated, -controlled un-/ hypercontrolled
|
↓ rights,
control, freedom → loss of control, inhibition ~ compensatory-freedom/ -control ↑ hyper-forms: hyper-freedom, hyper-control |
The resp. It inhibits, constricts /
disengages, excessively exaggerates, does not regulate, it fails, also
seduces, turns in circles.
P² becomes uninhibited, uncontrolled / disenfranchised, restricted,
inflexible, uptight, over-controlled.
External and internal totalitarian systems also create unlawful
spaces.
External systems: if, for example, someone in a totalitarian system
opposed its ideology, he entered a lawless room, that is, he became
disenfranchised.
Inwardly / intrapersonally: if P² violates a sA / super-ego, then she
no longer has the right to mercy and the also unreasonable punishment
follows.
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also
their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table columns O-S row 13.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes into
question: liberalism, laissez-faire views / restrictive ideologies. ~
Lenin: "Trust is good, control is better."
There is not only a negation and change of the various
forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table columns O-S row 14.
The
main
causes are the following ideologies or similar attitudes in question:
creationism / materialism, positivism.
[See, for example, the excellent description of the loss
of creativity by Peter M Rojcewicz in
(5)
Existential
Intimacy of Learning: A Noetic Turn from STEM | Peter M Rojcewicz
-Academia.edu.]
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
sterilized
falsely
caused
overgrown
|
↓ creativity
→ lack of creativity e.g.,: stereotypes
~ false creations, ghosts ↑ hyper-forms: over-productions, excrescences |
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
paralyzed,
inactivated mistreated over-activated |
↓
success, experience → inactivity ~ false
deeds, compensatory-behavior, affectation ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: hyper-activity, hyper-kinesis |
KW: damned to be successful. Example: P² in the hamster wheel.
Here also: disturbed interplay of activity and passivity, work and rest or reversal of activity and passivity or of active and passive. Why? The sA do not let you calm down or paralyze you.
For
further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table columns
O-S row 15.
The main causes are the following ideologies or similar
attitudes: activism, utilitarianism, pragmatism /partly consumism,
hedonism, coolness.
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
not
informed
misinformed,
lied to too sophisticated, precocious |
↓
Information, certainty → defective vision ~ false information ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: isolated knowledge, one-sided information |
If the It experiences no resistance or is not corrected, it
transmits its information to the carrier.
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
suppressed,
masked deceived
too exposed |
↓ expression,
openness → mutism, reticence
~ false expressions, e.g.,: language, travesties, enemy images ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: hyper-mime |
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also
their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For
further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table
columns
O-S row 17.
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
neglected
misinterpreted despised overrated |
↓ Meanings,
values dignity →
loss of them ~ disorder of self-esteem ↑ hyper-forms: e.g.,: overvalue, delusion |
There is not only a negation and change of the various
forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For
further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table
columns
O-S row 18.
The main causes are the following ideologies or
similar attitudes: Elitist thinking and behavior, society
with wrong values
(e.g. code of honor) / without values, egalitarianism et al.
'So we beat on,
boats against the current, but it drives us steadily back, towards the
past.'
(Adapted
from Scott Fitzgerald)
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
infantilized
mismarked conventionalized |
↓
past → lack of experience, immaturity ~ false memories, false past ↑ hyper-forms e.g.,: isolated memories, hypermnesia |
“Anyone who marries the zeitgeist will soon be a widower!” (Søren Kierkegaard)
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
put
off
falsely
calmed down rushed
|
↓ Time,
calmness → loss of time, of calmness, of peace ~ false dealing / conceiving with time and present ↑ hyper-forms: compulsion, harassment |
P
becomes |
loss
and replacement |
unprepared
mis-prepared “utopianized” |
↓ perspective
→ hopelessness ~ fear of future ↑ hyper-forms: Utopia |
There is not only a negation and change of the various
forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
E.g., self-fulfilling prophecy, progress trap.
For
further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary
table
columns O-S row 21.
Possible ideologies: Utopianism, progressivism /apocalypse, fatalistic
ideologies.
P
becomes |
loss and replacement |
uncorrected
mis-corrected condemned, hyper-corrected |
↓
correction, compensation → loss of
corrections/compensations ~ too much or false guilt ↑ hyper-forms: hyper-correctness |
There is not only a negation and change of the various forms, but also their reversal, splitting and fusion.
For further personal consequences in this aspect, see Summary table columns O-S row 22. It
is
|
P becomes |
loss
and replacement |
aggressive, sadistic falsely protecting pacifistic, masochistic |
unprotected
traumatized,
threatened armored |
↓
protection, peace → loss of protection, vulnerability ~ many defense mechanisms ↑ hyper-forms: armoring |
For further personal consequences in this aspect,
see Summary
table
columns O-S row 23.
The disorder or weakness of the personal defense is one of the
main topics in psycho-analysis.
Due to (almost) all Its, the defense becomes either
a) weakened or broken off or
b) alienated, displaced, distorted or
c) exaggerated such as an armor/ hardening.
Those disorders of defense happen in parts, where P does not
experience unconditional love and acceptance.
P will feel threatened by any person or situation that questions
his sA because he has identified with this sA.
Therefore P would take it personally if anything questions his
sA.
Further explanations see in the segment 'Defense and anticathexis´ later.
Disorders in the defense-system of the
person: |
If there is (for example) a person, such as the
father, who becomes absolute for me, then there will be a new It
within me, that is made up as follows:
In the center there is the It “father”, symbolized by the
Yin-Yang ☯ * - split into +sS on top [sS = strange Self] and
repressed ‒sS below; both with their inverse sides. (0 part is
not shown).
That It has its own territory, that has been
created like a new strange system around the center “father”.
Therefore, we have a new strange Absolute resp. Self, surrounded
by areas that are subordinated. We have already found that a new
Absolute/ Self affects more or less all aspects of its sphere.
Especially the ones that are the closest to “father” will be
affected. On the other hand, every other differentiation aspect
would also have to resonate. That means that whenever that It is
activated it is always about “father” or the father image within
me but also about all the other connected aspects. That on the
other hand means: It is also about the past, the present, the
future, gender, meanings, information, and so on - eventually
about everything that was represented by “father”. To put in
other words: All aspects that are dominated by the It, will be
changed more or less.
Especially those aspects that are the most similar
to It, will be changed the most.
But there will also be the mentioned repressed ‒sS: repressed
antipathy against the father (because the own Self is being
neglected).
*In my opinion, the yin-yang symbol in the middle represents the
characteristics of sS/It in equilibrium very well.
• All Its do not only change our being but along with that
they also change our worldview and the way we experience the
world.
The person becomes primarily like his/her It/sA and is only
secondarily itself. [146]
They change P according to the all-or-nothing-principle,
black-or-white, pro-or-contra, + or ‒.
We saw that +sA, ‒sA and 0 are three parts of the same “thing”,
the It. In the beginning, it mostly changes the person towards
the strange positive. That means that the person feels
subjectively very well, identical, strong, competent and so on,
without actually being it.
At the same time, the person is increasingly frightened
and threatened by the contrary ‒It/sA, without there being
a threat that is actually so bad.
• The +It (resp. the
+sA part) may give the person an absolutely positive feeling:
A feeling of absoluteness, self-awareness, self-assurance, total
love, feeling of an actual positive being and life, sense,
feeling of power, feeling of I-strength, freedom, wealth,
health, eternity, the feeling of an exact orientation, clear
differentiation of good and bad, precise knowledge of morals and
values, exact differentiation of who is a friend and who is an
enemy and so on - all to an extent which is not equal to reality
but we would like to live with it. The +Its promise us what we
long for in the depth of our soul without actually keeping the
promise. They change our personality so that we see everything
in their light, act in their name to receive what they promise.
But they deceive us and we have to pay a price for that. On the
other hand they do not deceive us totally. That is because they
are neither absolutely positive nor absolutely negative but
ambivalent.
• The ‒Its (resp. the ‒sA parts) threaten us with what we fear the most.
Usually that is the opposite of the +It-promises. They threaten
us with death, sickness, powerlessness, loneliness, poverty,
withdrawal of love, enemyship - without there being a
corresponding reason for it. They present themselves as
unbeatable enemies, as devil, as ‒A. They also change our
personality so that we become frightened, too careful, fearful
and so on. Here, we also have to pay a high price, which becomes
even higher the more the ‒It is actually relatively positive. But they help us against the disadvantages of
+Its.
• The 0 Its (resp. the 0 parts), that appear to be like an empty
face compared to the other two It-parts, negate the personal
aspects.
Or they create a contrary false All/ everything. But they help
us in the form of repression.
(See also `All-and-nothing emergence´ and `It towards Person
(sacrificial-dynamics and consequences).
We already realized that all Its have three
parts and therefore act in many different
(contradicting) ways.
• Whenever
contradicting Its are developed, they confuse us
because they are paradoxical, tend to divide and cause
double bonds. The person faces very different and
contradicting information and signals given by the same
It (person, situation). Looking at the arguments of two
opposing P² (resp. their Its) from a second-rate
perspective (from W²'s point of view), both are right in
their arguments. That fact is the reason for many
conflicts such as the ones in marriage. Every marriage
counselor can tell stories about how frustrating a
discussion can be in
that case - especially because both sides are
right - but they are only relatively right, since most
of the time, the higher, first-rate view is missing: the
view, that allows the person to understand the other
person's position. |
Examples for contradicting It-effects:
Helpers* cause hyper-help or helplessness or indifference.
Moralists* cause hyper-morality or immorality or indifference.
Right-wing extremists* cause more right-wing extremists or
left-wing extremists or indifferent people.
Asceticism* causes more asceticism or gluttony or indifference.
Altruism* causes/supports new exaggerated altruism or egoism or
indifference.
Self-centeredness* causes/supports new selfishness or altruism
or indifference.
Truth-fanaticism* causes new exaggerated truth-fanaticism or
lies or indifference etc.[147]
Fig. The main effects of
three opposing Its and their parts on the person.
(Dashed lines represent opposite effects, solid lines represent
equal effects.).
P is a cue ball of various It effects. The Its are each other´s
enemies or friends but they stick together against P and
ultimately exploit P. Method: carrot and stick.
The ‒sA (right), for example, makes P much afraid and drives P
into the arms of his opponent, the + sA (left).
This appears as a savior because it is the opposite of the ‒sA. P jumps out of the
frying pan into the fire and must bleed everywhere.
For more remarks, see: 'Overview
of all It- valences' and `It-parts,
opposites´.
Synonyms of strange I: Ego, second-rate I, I².
The explication refers to the strange-I, as well as the strange
you (you²) and strange we².
In the following paragraphs, I want to discuss the
emergence of I² under the influence of It/sA briefly.
The effects of the It/sA on the I are the same as the ones on
the person (as discussed above).
If you transfer the main effects given onto the 'I', the
following picture will be created:[148]
P causes a misabsolutization or adopts one from the
outside (mostly unknowingly). With that, something becomes all
or nothing, pro or contra, positive or negative in the absolute
understanding. These parts create a strange I (Ego) but also a
contra-strange-I (Anti-Ego) and a non-I. This process, which at
first only took place on the mental-spiritual plane, is then
"materialized", that is, to something material as an It. Now,
the I is dominated by the It and therefore the I becomes more
like the It - while the It becomes like the I.
As I said, this process is usually not conscious since strange
Absolutes resp. strange Selves have usually already established
in childhood or, as I believe, even prenatal - and we are
identified with them and they dominate and change us and
generate strange Ego-spheres in us. Fortunately, those changes
are only partial, which is an important fact for therapy. As
mentioned multiple times before, it is also important to know
that the strange Selves and their Egos are not solely negative
but that they also have positive parts. They are more or less
ambivalent, paradoxical and illogical. They are the main
components of various mental disorders.
Classification: |
strange-I (I², Ego) |
DIMENSIONS |
|
A |
my strange Self (sS) |
7 DM-aspects |
strange 7 dimensions of I² |
DIFFERENTIATIONS |
|
B |
Being of I² (my strange
being) |
23 Aspects |
e.g.,: I² own, I² work … resp. my property², my work², my situations², my possibilities², my belongings², my rules², my duties², my values² and so on are strange. |
Notes:
Here more about the used → Classification
For a change, I use `Ego´ or I² for the strange I.
(² means second-rate).
• Hyper-Ego = Ego, dominated by pro,+ sA. [149]
• Anti-Ego = Ego, dominated by contra, ‒ sA.
• Non-Ego (Non-I) = Ego, dominated by nothingness.
'Ego' means strange-I (I²). 'Ego' does not indicate an egoistic
person but a person whose I is controlled by an It/sA and
therefore lives in an unfavorable situation - especially under
the pressure of being in charge of everything and not being able
to rest. That I² is constantly switching positions between the
three parts of the It ( , ‒, 0), what I also call `imprisoned in
the psychical Bermuda Triangle´.[150]
However, it has only a relative role for the first-rate I-self.
With the
establishment of strange Selves resp. Its, something becomes
too absolute (absolutistic) and the person becomes relative or
irrelevant; something becomes too unconditional and the person
only conditional; something becomes too primary, too important
and the person too secondary, too unimportant; something
becomes too independent and the person becomes dependent;
something becomes the center and the person becomes a minor
role; something becomes a subject and the person its object;
something controls the person and the person does not control
something anymore; something becomes too real and the person
is no longer real; something strange becomes personal and what
is actually personal becomes material, less personal,
dehumanized, dividable; something lifeless becomes alive and
the affected person becomes lifeless, an object is humanized
and the person becomes an object.
One can also formulate: This is a "victory of the Relative
over the Absolute", a “victory of matter over spirit”,
“victory of objects over subjects”, “victory of things over
the person”, “victory of the strange over the Self ”, “victory
of the splitting over the unity”, “victory of dependence over
independence”, “victory of It over I”. (Fortunately, the “victories” are only partially
and temporary.)
Attentive readers have probably already realized that some of the mentioned changes represent basic patterns of mental disorders. In other words: a basic disorder has developed that is typical of psychogenic diseases. ( S. Freud's view that the ego is not master in its own house seems similar, but only partially corresponds to my opinion.)
What are the characteristics of this basic disorder?Fortunately,
the reversal of person and It is only relatively, even if the
person experiences the Its as absolutely.
[151]
Concretely that indicates that the
person never turns fully into the It, never becomes an
object or a function (of the It) entirely. Vice versa, the
internalized strange Absolute (resp. It) never fully becomes
the person, subject nor comes truly alive.
There will always be 'healthy parts' remaining within us
that are too strong, even if we are very ill or
manipulated. It is a philosophical or religious question, why
it is that way. We will come back to that question at a later
point.
"How real
is reality?" (Paul Watzlawick)
“The reality we can put into words is never
reality itself ...” (Werner Heisenberg)
It is
normal for our world that there are many, very different and
contradicting realities. That also applies to the person and
the psyche, although we usually expect that there is only one
will, one mindset, one feeling (and so on) for a certain
person regarding a certain topic.
That juxtaposition of various, very different realities, has
always awaked great interest of humanity. [152]
- As an example, the doctrine of the two kingdoms by Luther.
- Kierkegaard posited the human being to be a synthesis of
opposing elements, of “the infinite and the finite, and the
temporal and eternal, of freedom and necessity”. [153]
- Boris Pasternak: “Everything that happens takes place, not
only on earth, in which the dead are buried but somewhere
else, that some call the Kingdom of God1,
others history, and still others something else again.”
[154]
As stated several times, I distinguish between a
first-rate and many second-rate realities. Typical of the
second-rate realities is the juxtaposition of opposites, which
are experienced as incompatible. Overall, WPI[155] does not
consist of purely first-rate or purely second-rate realities
but a mixture of both. Both forms of reality are relatively
opposite. There is
only an absolute opposite between +A and ‒A.
Therefore it is normal that a person experiences him-/herself
and the existent reality as relatively strange.
[W. Blankenburg called the `loss of natural
self-evidentness' as a sign of schizophrenia (1971), but that
affects us all since we have lost the paradise and not just
`schizophrenics´. As a sign of schizophrenia, one may only
ascertain a predominant loss of natural self-evidentness
(corresponding to a predominant loss of the first-rate Self in the
sense of this work).
In: Der Verlust der natürlichen Selbstverständlichkeit. Berlin,
Parodos, 1971.]
It would
not be normal if a person experiences reality only as one
actual reality because our world, as well as people, are also
'built' in strange structures. In this sense there are
double-worlds resp. plural-worlds.
This applies to both personal and non-personal realities /
worlds: e.g. Two (or several) different beings, two kinds of
life, two happiness, two misfortunes, two different contexts,
etc., which, as said, are not completely separated.[156]
Unambiguous are only +A and ‒A, although that is not provable.
Everything else is relatively exact-inexact; only describable
relatively, relationally or comparatively.
(About the juxtaposition of opposite sA/It and their
dynamic see Double-Bind Theory.)
An overview of the nature of second-rate
realities can be found in Summary
table
in column N.
For simplicity I write sometimes instead of first-rate only
first or ¹, and instead of second-rate only second or ².
In W¹, there is a
coexistence of the relative-parts.
There are a lot of nuances. W¹
integrates
all relative-parts, also the sA.
The first-rate reality, which ranges
from +A to ‒A, represents a continuum with countless nuances. |
The relative-area in W² between a +sA
and a ‒sA however, shows no
continuum but only black and white, resp.
all-or-nothing parts. |
Atheistic
worldviews mainly describe second-rate worlds. For example:
Freud, Marx, Darwin, Buddhism, partly even humanistic
ideologies. They describe the world mainly as materialistic,
mechanical, dialectic, or dualistic and deterministic. The
focus is on the relativistic or the absolutistic. They no
longer see the transcendence, the mysterious, the wonderful,
the creative, the immeasurable, the spiritual because it is
not to catch directly and is not provable. Max Weber called it
the “demystification of the modern world”.
Examples: Psychoanalysis understands the
characteristics of a person only as existence of second-rate
realities, or second-rate personal aspects. The three main
instances of Freud (Ego, Super-Ego and Id) are instances of an
alienated, or ill person. They are defined accordingly. S.
Freud uses typically many mechanical terms such as the
"psychic apparatus" and the human being as an "object".
Further authors, who use that “language of the second-rate
realities” are - as mentioned - Marx (“The human being is a
product of the social circumstances”) and other materialists
or behavior therapists, that view the person mainly under the
aspect of the stimulus-response-model.
Language and terms of the first-rate reality are adequate and
clear. However, as I said, our world is not only made out of
the first-rate reality and is therefore not definitely
definable.
Usually,
second-rate realities can be recognized by absolute
obligations (`musts´), which gives us humans a temporary
feeling of orientation and safety but overstraining in the
long run. These obligations are usually caused by sA, that
control and force us. Are not most of the tragedies based on
the feeling of such obligations, the feeling that we
definitely have to do a certain thing which leads us into
radicalization, absolutization and greed? It can also be
compared to a kind of blackmailing, as in: “You have to do
that, otherwise I will take your +sA and replace it with a
‒sA.” Relative problems are then taken personally. Especially
in conflicts or war, everything becomes extreme which makes
the sA visible.
There is a certain point where it is always about
all-or-nothing, pro or contra. At that point, desertion is
hardly possible for the person. The person does not have much
of a choice anymore. The situation of a mentally ill person is
similar.
- The
strange Self (sS) can replace the Self in a certain kind and
we seem to have direct access to that.
- A strange Self can cause +hyper-effects, even if one must
pay a very high price for that.
- A strange Self promises an absolute power of control over
the world, other people and the Absolute.
- With a strange Self, the disadvantages of another strange
Self can be balanced.
In
contrast to the advantages of the strange-Selves, the
“disadvantages” of the actual Self are listed here:
Although the first-rate reality includes a +Self without any
cost, it also means that:
- The Self cannot be increased any further, otherwise it
becomes an inflated strange Self.
- Besides the possibility of actively choosing such Self, one
does not have any other kind of control over the
Self because it controls itself. The sS appears to be
controllable even though it is really not.
- The unconditional right of self-determination which is part
of the Self also includes self-responsibility. We like the
first, the second is reluctant.
- All people have this actual Self if they choose it. That
means that no person has the right to higher themselves over
another person.
- The Self is part of transcendence, God1 and
final subjects such as death. We like to repress that.
- We must also say farewell to the idea that good deeds would
have necessarily good consequences and bad deeds necessarily
bad effects.
All of us,
healthy or ill, live in inverted inner and outer worlds full
of paradoxes.
The wife of the Russian author Lew Tolstoi writes in her diary
on 10/25/1886:
“It sounds strange but the last two months, when Lev
Nikolaevich was ill, were the last happy time for me. I was
fortunate to be able to nurture him day and night had a task
whose meaning could not be doubted, the only one that I am
capable of sacrificing myself for the loved one. I was all the
happier the more burdensome I felt.” [158]
But that kind of luck could only be temporary and finally made
room for depression and hate. The more Tolstroi's wife
sacrificed herself for him, the more she had to hate him
because through that kind of love she bled dry. That hate-love
accompanied her for her entire life. When he was ill she could
be happy for two reasons:
First because she could fulfill her ideal of self-sacrifice.
Second because her aggressive feelings towards him were
satisfied by his illness.
Such as Goethe, Hölderlin also complained, how hard it is to
bear luck.
Apostle Paul writes that he has badly acted even though he did
not want to.
L. Völker published a book entitled “Come, holy melancholy”
with poems by various poets that describe the advantages of
sadness and depression. [159] The contradiction of
preferring the negative to the positive appears in many
different variations. They range from everyday paradoxes
and contradictions to severe self-torture and
self-destruction that still seem positive. They always
appear mysterious and shocking, fascinating and terrible
at the same time. Although we promised to do better
next time, we repeat our wrong behavior because of these
strange inner powers.
How
does it happen that we prefer the negative over the positive?
Why do we destroy something we love, or love something
although we hate it?
Why do we sometimes do the opposite of what we really want to
do?
How can there be opposite feelings at the same time?
Why do some people love others that are exploitative and
humiliating?
Why does a woman marry a drinker again, even though the first
marriage was a martyrium?
Why do we seek problems, instead of being happy that there are
presently no problems?
Why do we even seek the sorrow and fear the luck?
How come that people want to be sick than healthy, better dead
than alive, dependent than independent?
How do we understand that people feel pleasure when they are
beaten?
Why are there people that hold on to a craze that is obviously
absurd?
Hundreds of such questions
could be asked. In the depth, they question all our Self resp.
our Absolutnesses and can only be answered there.
A short answer: If the +A or the Self has a priority over
the Relative, then there are no such contradictions. Only
relative contradictions can exist which are resolved in
the larger context of +A/Self. However, when the Relative
replaces the Absolute or the Self, a reverse and more or
less paradoxical world is created. Positive things like
health become negative and negative ones like illness
become positive and so on.
One finds the same phenomena in second-rate general and
second-rate personal spheres (P²).
Here and there we find similarities: external and internal
oppression, coercion, persecution, external and internal
imprisonment, here dictatorship and there depression etc.
The difference is that P² is his own offender and victim at
the same time. Commanding voices and all other totalitarian
characteristics can be found both in the person concerned and
in a particular outside world. Many patients adapted such
totalitarian instances from their environment.
There is also a parallel between the thoughts of a mentally
ill person and the language of a totalitarian system, as e.g.,
Victor Klemperer described in his book "LTI".
• The
first and the strange, second-rate realities (WPI¹ / WPI²)
have very different dynamics.[160]
• The dynamics of WPI¹ or WPI² are determined by their
Absolutes.
• Structures and dynamics of the first-rate WPI are clear and
uniquely.
• Structures and dynamics of WPI² are ambiguous. WPI² has two main
dynamics and two main results: all² or nothing². If we differentiate
all² again, we will have three main dynamics with three main results
(all) pro² / (all) contra² and 0².
• So, in the second-rate dynamics, we can find 1. strengthening
(amplification), 2. opposite, contradicting dynamics (similar
Newton's third law: action = reaction) and 3. “0 dynamics”
(standstill).
• Pro-, Contra-, and 0 dynamics can change abruptly turn to the
opposite. (→ `Reversal
into the opposite´)
or "mix" (Similar "drive mix" by S. Freud).
• One finds these dynamics in both social and
individual processes. The paradoxical
character of the Its makes it possible that multiple
systems sometimes facing each other as enemies, sometimes act with
each other and in a third case, annul each other.
It/sA[161] are
(partly) autopoietic systems and have their own lives (such as
parasites). They tend to decay. Alone they have only a
temporary existence. They need a constant supply of the host
to keep alive.
Its/sA are based on the principle of all-or-nothing. If they
cannot be the all, they will not work. At first, they try to
be all the best for the host (system, human), to seduce them
to live from them. That only lasts as long as the host plays
along. But the host (usually us humans) believes not to be
able to survive without the Its/sA - since they are of top
priority for him. But in reality¹, the Its/sA are more
dependent on the host/ the human than the human on the It/sA.
If the hosting system does not “feed” an It/sA anymore, or
frees itself from the It/sA, the It/sA is unfortunately not
automatically dead.
Since its survival is the priority, every It/sA sacrifices
its own Relatives, its own “people”, ruthlessly like a
dictator.
The own “people” even sacrifice themselves for the It/sA
since it is their Absolute.
Those mechanisms may appear within a society or within an
individual.
More details can be found in: Symbiosis and parasitism between It and P²
.
• Like the
second-rate dynamics in general, the interactions in W² are
also determined by their strange Absolutes (sA resp. Its).
• The +A is always effective in the W², even if it does not
dominate. +A and its +R¹ are related to the sA/It in relative
opposition, so that, as in W² themselves, this also creates a
latent long-term conflict (with continuous stress). Therefore
it can come at any time to a "revolt" of the Relatives against
their oppressive Absolutes. Examples: rebellion of the
oppressed against their oppressors (e.g. revolutions),
rebellion of the masses against elites, rebellion of the truth
against the lies, etc. (psychologically as well as socially).
• Different sA/ Its and their systems have the same, or
opposite, or 0 direction of impact and may strengthen,
fight or annul each other.
• Larger complexes
arise whenever two or many Its are connected.
They usually occur as pacts, enmities or indifferent
complexes.
They are rigid but may turn into the opposite
quickly. (→ `Reversal into the opposite´)
• The interaction of the It/sA and the maintenance of
their balance always requires sacrifices.
Similar to the interaction possibilities between
different It (→ It-parts,
opposites, fusions and negations) all possible interactions between 2 W² resp.
different systems² are shown in the following graphic.
(Here I only give an overview, which I discuss in more detail
regarding personal interactions in the section "Complex personal dynamics and
relationship disorders " as well as in the unabridged version.)
As said, I will discuss the personal
interactions later. I believe, however, that the interactions
in larger systems follow the same principles.
Example: Within certain societies, certain ideologies will
complement and strengthen each other, or they may be in
opposition to each other. This creates both pacts / alliances
as well as hostilities / conflicts or both side by side in
equilibrium, depending on how the corresponding parts are
connoted. They are rigid and unstable at the same time, and
can always form new constellations at any time, or even turn
into their opposite.
Example: Interplay of opposing sA as ideologies.
Based on this symbolic picture (Fig. 43), imagine
how different ideologies can interfere with each other.
If, for example, the disadvantages of an ideological trend (in
this case of an absolutistic ideology) [162]
become ever greater then they cause automatically a
counter-direction, which than determines the zeitgeist
and a society. (See also `Reversal into the opposite´.)
In this
publication, I distinguish:
- One It = simplest complex.
- Double or multiple complexes consisting of two or more Its.
[163]
- Hypercomplexes networks consisting of many Its.
To the location:
- Complexes within a person.
- Interpersonal complexes = “relationship-complexes” (See also 'Relationship
disorders').
- Social complexes.
I think that the structures of the different complexes are
similar, despite very different contents. That means that
individual or interpersonal (familiar, social) complexes are
similar.
C. G. Jung understood
`complex' much like me as a “Group of largely repressed
ideas, which are connected as a cohesive whole and influence
the thinking, feeling and action of the individual by
eliminating a conscious control.”[164]
Based on the idea of this publication, one can say: All Its
can create such complexes with each other. They then lead to
by C. G. Jung described and other consequences.
Whenever personal (or other) Its and their systems react
with each other, the following complexes can be created:
• complex pacts (Syn.: symbioses,
collusions, mergers, fusions) - with connections (bonds) that
are too
tight,
• complex opponents (Syn.: enmities,
collisions) - with splittings (divisions),
• neutral complexes (Syn.:
0-complexes or liquidations) - with dissolution or repression
of connections/
bonds,
• mixed
complexes.
In the unabridged German version you can find more details about the complexes of other specialties because there are further similarities with psychical complexes: e.g., with chemical complexes, chaos theory, analogies in physics.
The pr complexes either show a stiff hierarchic structure, or they appear chaotic.
Here examples for pacts:
Its, or complexes, that are organized as pacts (have vectors with the same direction) stick together such as chains, which also explains certain chain-reactions and domino-effects in the second-rate realities.
Notes about the Transference
Transferences occur through the It/sA. Transference may occur from any pr unit to another pr unit.Two illustrations that show different aspects of transference.
Summary
We can find regarding the complexes:
• Self-organization/ autopoiesis.
• Processes: From order to chaos and from
chaos to order.
• Relativization of the principle of
causality: “Equal causes cause equal effects.”
• Low or fixed predictability.
• Interior and exterior interactions.
• A complex is never completely satisfied. There
is always a tendency to expand at the expense of others, or
it is "gorged" by others.
• Complex-phases are just like It-phases.
This chapter is based on knowledge of the
previous sections. However, I will try to repeat the most
important matters. This is now about the personal dynamics of
second-rate parts of persons which I labeled with P² or only
with P here. [165]
The It became part of the person, although it is something
strange for the person at the same time. That makes it hard to
understand the dynamics. The person can identify him-/herself
with the It and function as his/her It as well as be an
opponent of the It as something strange. To be exact, P² does
both: P² is always more or less identified with the It or
faces it as an opponent. Therefore, P² never has a definite
identity. P² can never find peace in him/herself because the
It or the complex that determines P² does not rest either. The
It is unstable. It has to make sure that the interior powers
are controlled and also guarantee that it steadily gains new
input (“food”) from the outside to stay alive.
• General
characteristics of the P²-dynamics: They are more inadequate,
heteronomous, “shifted”, disordered, unconscious, passive,
functional, automatic, artificial, contradicting and
paradoxical compared with the first-rate dynamics.
• Their directions are: too pro, too contra or too 0. (See Summary
table
in column Q).
• Instead of free life, P is now dominated by strange processes. As
long as the person is dominated by the It,
• P has to do whatever It determines. P has to act, think, realize,
function the way It wants to. Although P still has some choice, P
cannot destroy the It immediately
by an act of will because
It has been materialized.
• The “primary processes” (Freud) are similar to the
second-rate dynamics.
• The first-rate dynamics are clear and unambiguously.
• No person shows solely first-rate behavior because no person
can behave absolutely definite and unambiguously. There are
always P²-parts which also affect the behavior.
P between +A and sA
P stands
between the advantages and disadvantages of the +A and the
+sA.
Short to advantages of +sA: Emergence of + hyperforms. P gets
+* . (E.g., see Summary table column N, line ↑)
Disadvantages see last section. → P reacts with defense mechanisms.
Advantages of +A: + `Meta-help´ (redemption, salvation, etc.).
Disadvantage: no + hyperforms, withdrawal. → P reacts with Resistance.
Therapeutically important: The +A does not leave P alone when
disturbed by the sA.
F. Hölderlin: "Where
there is danger, the saving also grows!"
Second-rate
personal dynamics become damaging (for the person
concerned or others) in the long run.
P² dynamics to the
outside harm especially other people, P² dynamics in the
person harm especially the person himself. Of the
latter, in turn, the dynamics in which P functions in the role
of an It are more damaging to environment and the 'victim
dynamics' are self-injurious, whereas addictions,
defenses, and repression mechanisms make both.
Interaction with the It will be even more expensive for P, the
more strange and dissimilar the strange Absolute is in
comparison to the actual Absolute that is being
replaced.|
In the
beginning, there is a symbiosis between +It and P. Both sides
give and take. Metaphorically, you can say: The Ps give their
blood to the Its and in return, the +Its give P drugs and
safety² against ‒sA, which were created by themselves. Both
need each other. In reality, the Its depend on P; P however
only depends on the It/sA mainly in a subjective way. (That
fact is important for therapy).
They are both connected with some sort of hate-love. They
“love” each other with “libido”, as long as they give each
other whatever the other one needs. P² needs It as
compensatory-Absolute because P² does not live from the actual
Absolute. At the same time, the It needs P² as host. Enmity
and hate appear, whenever one (or both) of them do not fulfill
their symbiotic role anymore. The It will put P under pressure
and tyrannize P when P does not function the way It expects,
especially if P tries to become the master of the own house
again. That is a typical situation for P to become ill.
However, if P is able to free him-/herself from the It(s), the
It dies, whereas P survives. On the other hand, P is
subjectively so dependent on the Its that he/she often prefers
to die him/herself instead of letting die the Its, since the
Its became his/her new Absolutes. Then suicide is the last
logical consequence of this situation.
The interactions of It/sA
and persons show noticeable
parallels with
symbiosis and parasitism.
Almost every characteristic of a parasite also applies to the
It. (More in the abridged German version).
The following topics are discussed below:
1. P²-dynamics in
identification with an It, or an It-part.
2. P²-dynamics towards
an It or an It-part.
3. P²-dynamics, that
show P² in a victim role.
Hints:
I have listed, point 1 and 2 corresponding 'secondary reactions' in
the Summary
table
in column 'P'.
`The victim dynamics´ are listed in column O. All types of dynamics
overlap!
The graphic is meant to illustrate the
direction of the dynamics:
They come from the
It-core of a person (or one of its parts) and go into the
relative-area,
or outside (left arrow),
in an efferent way.
This section is about dynamics that come from the
absolute-sphere of the It, the core-It.
That is especially the case in the very beginning. In
this case, P is identified with the core-It and acts in its order.
Here, P acts as It because P also became It, and the It is
personalized and individualized.
To be exact, P does not act as the It itself but as its functionary,
participant and representative. As mentioned before, P is like
subject² and object at the same time.Therefore P could be described
as “sobject”. P in this role is first and foremost a perpetrator but
always a victim of the dominant Its, too. Whenever P lives in the
name of the It, then especially by the motto: all or nothing, black
or white, top or bottom, win or loss, this or that, enemy or friend,
hate or love and so on. People in this role are self-important -
self-important like a god or self-important like a devil. Common
mottos are: "Whoever is not with me is against me." Instead of the
connecting "and" dominates the "or".
P is captured within the It and is only able to see the world from
its specific point of view. We now live the life of the It: We only
see what It sees. We act the way It wants us to. We only feel what
It feels. We love and we hate what It loves and hates and so on. I²
do what It tells me to do. I do what my inner “dictator” says. In
the worst case, I sacrifice my life to It because the main goal of
my life is the It, the parasite. It gives me what I believe is
necessary for me. Only It lets me be I. Without It I do not exist.
+It lets me be alive, ‒It kills me. Only +It gives me worth. I am
abandoned from the It as soon as I stop bowing down to It. That can
show in almost all dynamics (processes, behaviors etc.), even if
they are contradictory. That is important for understanding
behavioral disorders and paradoxical behaviors. That also means: P
can primarily want something positive but does the opposite. Or P
wants all but achieves nothing. As mentioned before, the It and
therefore P too, also tries to expand to the outside. With that, P
is also able to dominate other people through the It. Whatever It
does to me, I do to others. I demand from other people to do what I
think is right to do. People with other beliefs are being excluded
or fought. P experiences doubt of his/her way of thinking or acting
as questioning or attacking of the own person. Factual issues are
taken personally. It has to be that way because P identified itself
with the It and whenever the It is being attacked, it has to be
experienced as an attack on the own person.
The Summary
table
shows in column `K´ across all aspects the character of P, if
he has identified himself with It!
The illustration shows from which It-parts
P acts when P has identified him-/herself with the It.
The
inverse sides in gray font are latent but can be activated at
any time.
Pro-sA / +
P² is
identical to pro/+sA. I am +* (pro-sA and +sA are used
synonymously).
All pro/+sA determined actions are more or less
variations of: P loves (absolutizes) something, him/herself
or other people too much and hates (‒absolutized) their
opposites too much.
If the person loves or absolutizes mainly him-/herself, that
equals selfish, narcissistic or when P is fully identified
with pro/+sA he/she shows possibly manic behavior.
However, I dare not lose the It because that would also mean
the loss of my identity, of my Self. So, I always have to
feed It. In the background, the opposite, the contra-sA, is
constantly waiting. I have to fight its realization to
assure the +*. Due to the exertion of force that is needed
permanently to keep up what we love, we also start to hate
it. We have to hate it because we bleed dry because of the
+sA. At the same time, we enjoy bleeding dry for it because
the It became our Absolute that we believe to need.
P overstrains him/herself in this specific role. P does not
see his/her limits because he/she is doped with inner
endorphins. P is manipulable and vulnerable at this point.
A special role is being played by the behavior of P on the
positive sides of the contra-sA or the 0. When keeping up
the pro-sA became too expensive, the positive sides of the
contra-sA become stronger. These contra sides cause P to
show (often suddenly) antagonistic, hostile behavior towards
the pro-sA or its representatives (e.g., towards other P).
Therefore, in every absolutization an ambivalent behavior is
possible.
Contra-sA/ ‒
P² is
identified with contra / ‒sA. I am ‒*. (The terms contra-sA,
‒sA and ‒* are used synonymously).
The ‒sA are our false devils/ enemies/ evil with whom we have
identified ourselves.
The behaviors of a P, determined by ‒sA, are variations of: P
hates him/herself or others too much and loves their opposites
too much - since they are both sides of the same coin, the
It.
Self-( or other) punishment and -aggrandizement may stay
balanced or alternate.
0
The
behavior of P, whenever P is identified with 0, is comparable
to the behavior of a nihilist or a person that suppresses the
most important aspects of life. The main characteristics are:
I ignore, liquidate, neglect, sacrifice something, somebody or
even myself.
Example: “I am the spirit of perpetual negation.”
(Mephistopheles).
There are often so-called displacement activities or similar
behaviors. The behavior of this P is often the opposite of the
behavior that is determined by the all - in sense of
all-or-nothing behavior.
See also `Negation (all or nothing)´.
Ambivalent, Paradoxical Behavior
“I loved my heroes
like a fly the light;
I looked
for their dangerous proximity and fled and looked for them again.”
(Hölderlin,
Hyperion´).
P will act
in an ambivalent, contradicting way if two opposite
powers are of equal strength. So, if all and nothing, or
pro-sA and contra-sA have the same power within P. Example: P
loves and hates at the same time. The opposite powers are
often balanced or take turns.
P will paradoxically
act if his/her +sA is
connoted negatively or his/her ‒sA is connoted positively.
Equal and Opposite Behavior by pro-/contra-/0 sA
Persons who have the same sA can
show the same but even contrary behavior.
Persons who are determined by an opposite sA, can show contrary but
even the same behavior.
Example: One can have the obsessive thought of killing someone due
to the enormous hate one has for that person. However, someone (like
one of my patients) may have the same obsessive thought due to too
much love. (The woman of my patient was his +Absolute, and he
developed the obsession he may kill her for fear because he may lose
her thereby - the meaning of his life).
Although maintaining these opposing positions requires much energy,
P often benefits from living from both pro-sA and contra-sA
positions. This allows P to maintain (an expensive) balance. P can
compensate for the disadvantages of a sA with the opposite behavior.
The person can use this "pendulum strategy" as a defense and thus
become invulnerable.
Here only keywords because the role of P as a victim
of Its, which I discuss later, is much more important in terms of
the emergence of mental illness.
(For more details, see Summary
table
in
column P and Q).
P² with Misdimensioned Efferent Dynamics
a1: In this aspect, P mainly acts out of an
absolutistic, or relativistic, or nihilistic position.
a2: P acts out of a
hyper-identified or alienated position.
a3: P acts out of a
hyper-realistic, or wrong, or hyper-realistic position.
Example for
criticism on such a hyper-realism:
“The
words of humans fill me with fear.
They name all the things with articulate sound:
[...] It's the singing of things I'm longing to hear.
You touch them and stiff and silent they turn.
You're killing the things for whose singing I yearn.“
Rainer Maria Rilke
Some P²
in this position express everything in the indicative. They do
not seem to know the subjunctive.
Others however, do not seem to feel the desire to express
themselves clearly.
a4: In this
aspect, P acts out of a one-sided, monistic or dualistic
position.
P isolates, merges,
divides him/herself or something or other people.
a5: In this aspect, P mainly acts out of a
deterministic and dogmatic or unreliable and libertinistic
position.
P makes him/herself, something or another
person too insecure, wants to let go too much or on the
other side, fixate too much,
misprogram or determine.
a6: In this aspect, P acts out of a dictating,
radical position.
P will equalize or radicalize; exaggerate
or understate.
a7: In this aspect, P acts out of an automatic,
autocratic, tyrannical or servile position.
P will (him/herself or else) subordinate,
overadapt or become too independent.
P² Efferent Dynamics Concerning the IV Main Differentiations
Being:P-dynamics as a Strange Unit
P-dynamics as strange all-or-nothing:
P takes a totalitarian or negating position, depending on the
It that identified him-/herself with. “All or nothing” says
the It, and P acts by that principle. P totalizes or negates
(or isolates). This all-or-nothing behavior can also be found
in everyday life. Such as living the motto: “I either do the
whole thing or nothing at all.”, or “If I cannot perfectly
complete this, I will not do anything at all anymore.”, “You
are either here for me completely, or you can leave.”
P as “God” or “devil”:
^P demonizes or idolizes or profanes him/herself or others out
of this position.
P may act as his/her own God or his/her own devil.
P as “thing” or “hyper-person”:
Depending on the It, P may feel and act like a thing
(depersonalized), or oppositely (like a hyper-person).
Or P treats others that way.
P as “hyper-I” or another person:
P feels and acts like a person that is imprisoned
within him/herself or only focused on him/herself in egocentricity
(→ The Ego as a
strange Absolute) - or acts and feels like another person
(“heterocentricity”).
P-dynamics are too
physical/ too spiritual/ too mental:
Depending on what part of P (body, soul, mind) is identified with an
It, the affected person will feel a certain way. Here are also
contrastive pairs. (Example: “Head” and “stomach”) Such as in the
other aspects, nuances of behaviorism are missing. The behavior is
too determined by body or soul.
Additional Differentiations (Examples)
I constrain here just on a few examples because the
role of P as a victim of the Its in relation to the pathogenesis is
more important. But as said: All types of dynamics overlap!
In keywords, I have listed all aspects of
differentiation and their personal dynamics in the Summary
table.
Aspect 8: Volition
We want whatever the It wants and not what we really want ourselves.
Aspect 11: Necessities
P is acting out of an It that represents absolutized necessities. P will start to believe that something, that is really not an absolute necessity, is definitely necessary and has to be made. Since P as It is mainly in the role of an offender, P will mainly demand other people to fulfill the requirements. They are usually dogmatic, bureaucratic or technocratic people on the one side, and on the opposite side, there are people that tend to anarchy. According to the contrast-pair-dynamics, there is often a change between the different positions..
Aspect 12: Morale
P acts out
of an exaggerated conscience or out of lack of conscience.
In the first case, there is usually a scrupled personality.
If the conscience is the last instance and P acts out of it -
and not towards it - the affected person will believe to know
exactly what is morally and what is not. Being in this
position, P is convinced to know exactly what one is doing
right or wrong.
Aspect 13: The Distorted View
Just like looking through different
glasses, the affected person has different views.
Left: =
pro-view; Right:= contra-view; Middle:= ambivalent view.
Left:
like magnification, rose-colored view with advantages². Right:
dark prisms or no view.
Note:
Looking through the different `glasses´ at the same time is
also possible.
Considering mental disorders, this topic is more
important than the described dynamics of P as It because here, the
person has to make more sacrifices for It than before. P is like a
prisoner of the It. Therefore P has to make appropriate sacrifices,
to receive the positivity that seems absolutely necessary and to
fend the negativity that appears dangerous and hostile. Put
religiously: After eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of the
good and the bad in paradise, we seem to be cursed to absolutely
need to achieve the good and avoid the bad.
P is in a `psychical Bermuda Triangle´ (see graphic). P is trying to
find an absolute +*, and sacrifices with that +¹ from
him/herself (or other +) in the long run. P does not find peace in
that triangle and jumps from one pole to another. P cannot be with,
nor without the It. Whenever a +sA becomes my life, my drug, then
the loss of it or the ‒sA is like dying or death. Therefore, I do
everything to assure that +sA stays alive and to avoid ‒sA. With
that, there is a constant necessity of exertion because the +sA
needs to be fed, and the ‒sA needs to be fought at all times.
The It lures with a +sA and threatens with a ‒sA.
The It can be everything for P: +It
(object of addiction), ‒It (object of defense), or 0²
(zero-object).
Fig. P in the `psychological Bermuda Triangle´.
The opposites are ever-present. At least potentially. After reaching the +sA, or the defense of ‒sA, the respective opposite becomes stronger because the price is becoming too high to keep the +sA alive and to avoid the ‒sA. The result is: I hate and love the It too much. From which I depend, I love and hate too much.[166]Also: The dependent person makes easily other people dependent.
P is
looking for a +It/sA that
gives absolute positivity (+*).
P feels great, awesome, high, when receiving +*. [167]
Addiction to what?
The
addiction is directed towards something absolutized positive.
Usually, that is a +sA. But it may also be the positive side
of ‒sA or of 0, that we are addicted to. That is the case if
+sA became too expensive, and if there is no other +sA as an
object of addiction.
More important than
addicting substances (alcohol, drugs) are `behavioral
addictions´ (= non-substantial addictions).
Addiction to +sA
In the beginning, the It mainly offers its positive side, the +sA. It always promises more than it can give. Compared to the first-rate positive, the It often has the advantage of faster satisfaction, even if that is usually connected with higher costs for P.
All
aspects may function as +sA.
Examples:
• Success (aspect 15)
P always and consistently has to pump successes into the
It-center to feel good because the +sA that causes well-being
has only short-term effects and becomes soon weak. We have to
feed our Egos. Therefore we are doomed to success.
• Safety (aspect a5)
Safety is often conveyed by accurate rules which must be
obeyed, like in an army. With an absolutization, the actual
danger is often pushed in the background. (A very grotesque
example was the instruction for the terrorists of September
11th, to make sure that their clothes are clean to get to
paradise.) It is also a common behavior for people with
compulsive illnesses, that feel secure by following certain
rituals. Those compulsions have a high cost for the affected
person.
• Health (aspect 5)
The specific +sA, or its representatives, the health fanatics
or people that use health for business, the believers that
view God1 only
as a God of health - all of them tempt others people with the
message of health being able to be achieved completely if
certain requirements are met by P. (Ideology of `healthism´)..
• Satisfaction (Aspect 7)
Currently, drugs, internet addiction, soccer (and similar)
play a big part in this aspect.
The more we are seeking satisfaction with those kinds of
Absolutes, the more we will receive compensatory-satisfaction
(or compensatory-fortune). And as soon as the
compensatory-satisfaction becomes too expensive or does not
fulfill us anymore, we will try to find another
+*object. We may also let a part of an unachievable object
fulfill our needs temporarily: at least catch a glimpse of the
loved one, a piece, an idol´s autograph etc.
The terms of psychoanalysis describe similar aspects:
compensatory-satisfaction, compensatory-objects,
compensatory-actions. C.G. Jung denotes neurosis as
compensatory-affliction. (It should be added: neurosis as
compensatory-luck, too).
Briefly, the theory of S. Freud: Since the original object of
love (mother) is forbidden, the child tries to find a
compensatory-object. The consequence of the suppressed
original wish may be a symptom. With that, the original wish
would be partly satisfied because of the associative
connection between the wish and the symptom, so that with the
symptom, the wish is fulfilled symbolically.
Freud says, that a compensatory-satisfaction takes place,
whenever a wish or a drive/ instinct cannot be fulfilled due
to inner or outer prohibitions and other actions fulfill
(partly) those needs.
I differentiate: first-rate (heavenly) happiness, that is free
of costs, and second-rate "happiness", that has to be paid for
(compensatory-happiness).
•
For a general description of
the term addiction to life see the section `Life and death as sA'.
Addiction to +Side of ‒sA
Examples:
• Choice/search of a negative identity (Erikson).
• Seeking for sorrow, e.g., “It is easier for me to feel
sorrow than to constantly be happy.”
Or: “My
sorrow is the strongest weapon against the fake optimism of my
parents.”
• “Addiction to illness” see: “morbid gain”
Also: Depression is the strongest (second-rate) remedy against
the danger of becoming manic. The same applies to mania, which
is the strongest (second-rate)
remedy against becoming
depressed.
Addiction, drive or pulse to the +side of a ‒ part of an It is
also a defense of the ‒ sides of a +sA.
Addiction to +Side of 0
Examples: Longing for nirvana or every-day reaction: If I cannot get everything, then I do not want anything at all. Because: The nothingness seems more bearable than the loss of +everything.
Overview and Definition
Talking
about defense or Defense-mechanisms (DM), I am
referring to second-rate, usually unconscious reactions of the
affected person towards absolutely negative perceived
experiences (‒*), which actual are only relatively negative.[168]
Negative* sides of the different It/sA (or ‒A)
are being fended. Whatever is perceived as absolutely negative,
the affected person will view it as an attack on the
Self. Therefore the person will not react relaxed or
with relative methods. On the other side, the
defense-reactions are inadequate, exaggerated and
expensive, compared to first-rate solutions.
Synonyms or similar terms for defense-mechanisms:
anticathexis, counter-reaction, second-rate
protection/defense.
Anticathexis I view here as the defense of a part by an opposite. (More see below).
(I
will equal treat anticathexis and reaction formation here for the
sake of simplicity.)
The
“defense” of negatively perceived consequences of +A is
referred to as resistance.
I view solutions
or (primary) protection as first-rate reactions of the
affected person towards the ‒*and other negative.
Coping
and Defense
In
short, "coping" is generally understood as stress management.
There are fluent lines between coping and defense. The more it
leans towards defense, the higher are the costs. I mean,
defense and coping have only secondary value because they
depend at last on the strength of humans and a human has only
limited strength. In contrast, first-rate solutions are mainly
based on the Self, require less effort and are less costly and
more effective in the long run. I.e., absolutely negative
experiences cannot be managed by the I alone because the I
only has relative force/strength. Concepts of therapy and
defense that are more focused on the I than on the Self are in
my opinion secondary. Typically, the Self did not play a big
part in S. Freud´s theories. The Ego and rationality were
Absolutes for him. (Freud: “Where Id was, there Ego shall be”,
“My God Logos” and so on.)
However, a defense system that focuses on both of it (Ego and
Logos) in the center, seems to be too weak to compensate deep
disorders. I think that is also the reason why Freud only saw
a few starting points in psychotherapy of psychoses. The
strong and integrative powers of an actual Self remained
unconsidered by him. Even the self-psychology only tries to
extend old psychoanalytic models because it defines the Self
only as a Relative.
(Further, see in Self-strength
and Ego-strength or in the
unabridged German version).
What is Being Fended? (Targets of Defense)
As
mentioned before, everything that is experienced as absolutely
negative is a target of defense. This is:
1) ‒sA and the consequences
2) ‒ of +sA (e.g., too costly harmony, esp.
the loss of a +sA).
3) ‒ of 0.
About 1)
Mostly fear, sadness, pain, guilt, anger, conflicts, bad
experiences and burdens are defended. Especially what was
experienced as absolutely negative has to be defended. At
these parts that P identified him-/herself with, P is mostly
endangered if they are being attacked. I² am the It. If you
attack something* of me, you are attacking my Self. I call
that the open black (or in case of +sA: white) gates within
the defense-system of a person. Then P cannot differentiate
between objective issues and personal issues.
(Also see: Vulnerability-stress-theory).
About 2)
If somebody/something threatens my +sA, and I have to fear
the loss of it, than somebody/ something becomes my enemy
because it threatens the center of my existence. “All
my life I have been haunted by the obsession that to desire
a thing or to love a thing intensely is to place yourself in
a vulnerable position, to be a possible if not a probable,
loser of what you most want.”
(Tennessee Williams, “The Theatre of Tennessee Williams”, p.4, New
Directions Publishing )
That means that also the positive can be fended or feared if
its negative side becomes too visible.
About 3) 'Horror vacui' spreads fear and
terror. P has to fill ‒0 with something. P has to pay a
price. A constant escape from an unbearable emptiness. How
many people cannot be without constant input.
Thus, P² often fears the loss of +sA, the coming of ‒sA or
total emptiness more than its own death.|
How and with What is Being Fended? (Remedies of Defense)
With what P can solve or fend off Negatives* ?P puts +*
against ‒*, resp. `false
Gods against devils´.
Examples: Work against boredom, hyper-control against chaos or
sex against mortal fear. (Similar to S. Freud's anticathexis
'Libido against Destrudo'.)
‒ Anticathexis
A common
saying is “To replace devil with Beelzebub)”,
i.e. one negative
compensates for another negative. Illness as defense plays a big
role in this aspect.
This problem will be described in more detail later. (→ Morbid Gain).
Otherwise
– against – of + (e.g. death wishes against unbearable
life).
– against – of 0 (e.g. hate, war, fanaticism etc. compensate inner
emptiness).
Anticathexis by 0 (Repression)
Here, it
is about the mechanisms, where
‒* is defended by a 0 (Nothing).
Psychoanalysis mainly describes those mechanisms by using the
term “repression”.
I will present two examples out of the publication of I.D.
Yalom 'The Schopenhauer cure' [174]
"Schopenhauer made me aware that we are doomed to turn
endlessly on the wheel of willing: we want something, we get
it, we enjoy a brief moment of gratification, which quickly
sinks to boredom, then inevitably the next 'I want' follows.
To breastfeed the desire is not a way out - you have to
jump completely off the cycle … In fact, these ideas are also
at the center of the Buddhist doctrine." (p. 360, 338).
Additional keywords about that topic: Stoicism and similar
escapism-ideologies; Buddhism: “Nirvana”, “Victory of
renunciation”. Hermann Hesse: “Courage, my heart, take leave
and fare thee well!”; Goethe: “This, die and become”, and many
more. Also: Fending off the negative sites of the all by the
nothingness.
S. Freud´s Anticathexis in Comparison with
Pro-Contra-sA-Dynamics
S. Freud:
Anticathexis “a psychical process that supports the psychical
defense. Its main use is to prevent desires of a drive of the
It to become real. Destrudo helps to neutralize libidinous
desires - or vice versa.” [170]
Discussion:
In my opinion, it is an expensive emergency solution in
the second-rate realities.
(Note: Freud only describes dynamics of
second-rate realities.)
Anticathexis is about the dynamics between the named
It-parts (pro/contra sA) which stand in opposition.
E.g., if a part* (sA) is experienced too negative, its effect can be
neutralized by its opposite (Contra-sA).
This anticathexis requires a constant supply of energy.
Even according to S. Freud, this energy is as great as the energy
that the repressed part* has.
Internal and external defense mechanisms
The defense mechanisms can be internal or external. Internal defense mechanisms take place in the person himself. In the case of "external defense mechanisms," the individual blames others for his or her protection. For example, the one-sidedness of an exaggerated pacifism may be compensated for internally by corresponding aggressive fantasies or externally by an aggressive partner. Likewise, the individual may have been held responsible for the defensive functions of his partner or other people in reverse. Such constellations are typical for Collusions.
The Double Character of Defense-Mechanisms (DM)Due to the
fact that the sA/It and their consequences are ambivalent, one
sA may strengthen and/or weaken the defense-system. This
mechanism can be compared to a tank that weakens the defense
because it is very immobile but it also makes them less likely
to be attacked. Another example are debts, that help at
first but become very burdensome in the long run. Depending on
the situation or the time frame, there are either positive or
negative consequences in the foreground. Therefore, the
sA/It resp. the strange-Selves may be the second-best
friends (following the Self), or the second-worst enemies
(following the actual negative Absolute). However, the defense
is always more costly than a first-rate solution.
Overview of possible defense mechanisms from one's own point of view see the Summary table columns O and P.
Summary of Defense-Mechanisms
Answers to
some W-questions: Who? Why? What? With what? When? Where?
Whom? (How?, How long?)
• Who defends? P².
• What is being fended? Everything that is experienced as
absolutized negative.
• Why? To defeat the negative and keep the positive.
• With what? Everything that is experienced as negative can be
fended by all psychical relevant aspects.
• How? Especially by anticathexis or sacrifice.
• Where? Mainly in the unconscious of P².
• How long? Until one +sA predominates or until an actual
solution was found.
• What is the price? P² mostly pays with parts of the Self,
otherwise everything that is of psychical relevance can be
used to pay.
• Who pays the price? If it is a sacrifice, P² mainly pays the
price him/herself, otherwise, it will be paid by other people
or other realities.
• How expensive is the price? The DM is the more
expensive, the more has to be sacrificed of +A or the Self.
• What is being defended? The It and its system resp. the Ego.
• Active or passive? Conscious or unconscious? Actively and
consciously as action or reaction especially in form of
coping; passively and unconsciously in form of processes and
functions especially in form of defense-mechanisms.
To be
exact, every reaction of P² is ambivalent because the It of
them is ambivalent as well. The strongest ambivalence exists
if a +sA-part and a ‒sA-part of one It are of equal strength,
or if there are two contradicting Its facing each other. P² is
caught within the It. So, P² is facing contradictions and
paradoxes, that seem intractable for P² and that are the basis
of many mental disorders.
P² constantly finds himself in all-or-nothing
situations. P² can be torn between the plus-parts and
the minus-parts of It ( sA or ‒sA), or he falls into the
nothingness.[175] The
affected person will have an excessive love-, hate-, or
indifference relationship with other people. | Because the sA
are experienced very differently by the person, there can be
some crazinesses, that cannot be explained or understood with
common sense. E.g., whatever was fended first because it had a
‒* connotation may become +* and vice versa. However,
that crazinesses may have important functions in the
second-rate dynamics. There are often multiple functions at
the same time: Addiction and defense at the same time (s.
Freud´s `mixture of drives´) or alternating. Addiction,
defense and sacrifice as functions of the opposites ( sA, ‒sA,
0) are parts of the totalitarian unit 'It'.
Keywords: If the enemy dies, the false
friend will die as well, resp. if the “devil” dies, then the
false God will die, too.
But also vice versa: If the devil dies, the false God can have
a short high. The false God needs the devil in order to be
itself and vice versa. My “God” is also my “devil” (or
nothing). Whatever I love excessively, can also be hated
excessively. In relationships, those people tend to love
too much (→ pact, symbiosis) or to hate too much (→ enmity) or
living both sides (love-hate) or to lose themselves in
emptiness (0).
I repeat: those opposites are just two sides of the same coin,
the It (resp. the strange Self). Although they are opponents,
they are friends when it comes to the opposition towards the
first-rate Self. The opposites can be active at the same time
or appear in phases one after another. E.g., hyper-position
and hypo-position can be taken simultaneously or successively.
“Because I am so submissive, I am the greatest and better than
the others.” Or the succession of two contradicting desires:
“I desire your love but because I experienced love as
exploitative in my past, I am also afraid that you love me.”
Likewise, I can now love something that I hated because it
frees me from the flip side of a + *. For example. "I hated
the exhausting diets (during anorexia), now I'm
(unconsciously) free of it and eat me full (bulimia)."
Such contradictions and paradoxes are created by `Inversions´,
such as described at the beginning of the chapter 'metapsychiatry'. |
Example of a Patient
Patient W.
had problems with women: He viewed women either as saints or
as whores. He desired but he also feared to fall in love. He
was longing for intimacy and affection but was afraid to
become dependent on a woman. Typically, he fell in love with a
prostitute because she was also depending on him. That way he
was able to direct the relationship. However, the more he fell
in love with her, the more he was afraid to lose her or to
lose himself. He could not be without her anymore but at the
same time he could not “really be with her”. “I loved her and
I hated her.”
As a result, he developed fantasies of murdering to her to end
the dependency and because he did not endure imagining how she
slept with other men. But it was paradoxically also been
right to him that she had sex with other men because that way
he did not experience his dependency as that strong.|
Other Examples for “Love-Hate”
• In
sadomasochistic relationships.
• In Borderline-disorders.
• Tolstoy and his wife.
• Pablo Picasso and the women.
• All people that sacrifice too much for others. For example
Idealists for a certain idea, mothers that sacrifice too much
for their kids, men that sacrifice too much for their job, a
partner for the other partner, etc.
“If you begin by sacrificing yourself to those you love, you
will end by hating those to whom you have sacrificed
yourself.” (George Bernard Shaw). A development worker: “Most
people that I know went to the developing countries as
idealists and came back as racists.” (See also: `Possibilities
of interactions´)
Can't everything fascinate people? Can't
everything have advantages, at least temporarily, and we fall for it
/ choose it, even if the price is too high?
Since every Relative has two sides, the inherently
negative Relative also has a positive side, which can be fascinating
when it dominates. (→ Examples
of the Genesis of the three It-parts).
There are many different fascinations of the negative:
• There is a fascination of the evil.
From
a
religious point of view, the fascination of sin is similar: after we
have eaten the apple of the knowledge of good and evil, we are
condemned to do good and leave evil, and it is fascinating to lift
this curse by doing evil . Similar to Paul: “… the good that I want,
I do not; but the evil ... ”- that is,“ that force that wants good
but creates evil.”(Based on Goethe).
• There is a fascination to be just a thing / object or a machine instead of a person.
Example: “There was a grandiose emptiness and
self-abandonment on the faces of these men, which has probably never
existed in the course of history ... They lived so cleanly, so
precisely, so without thoughts, as without conscience as living
engines. They were just waiting to be started or turned off ...
engine people." [Franz
Werfel cit. In P.S. Jungk: „Franz Werfel: Eine Lebensgeschichte“.
S. 257].
• There is the fascination of giving up oneself, the
fascination of wanting to lose one's own individuality and merge
into a crowd.
• There is a fascination to be sick
rather than healthy.
• There is the fascination of death and the nothing.
(Keywords:
death instinct, longing for death, suicide).→ S. Freud `Thanatos and → Inverted, Paradoxical World.)
The causes of these fascinations vary from person to
person.
They essentially correspond to what I
have listed in the section on Morbid
Gain under`Morbid gain in detail'.
[These processes play
an important role in mental illness. They are often an expressionof
emergency or replacement solutions].
In relation to the fascination of evil,
taboos probably play a special role.
[The fascination of evil can theoretically also come
primarily from a ‒A (as primary sadism, primary destructionism]
Some people only want the positive and suppress the negative. But
then the person concerned lives contrary to his nature and pays a
price: He lives only half and unfree. The complement, the
counterpart - the negative side (evil, aggressive, immoral, etc.) is
missing in his life. This applies above all to humanists, pacifists,
idealists, altruists, perfectionists and moralists.
Karen Horney called her "press
angel".
An insoluble conflict arises: On the one hand, the person
concerned wants to live without negative sides, but on the other
hand, he wants to be free and whole. Therefore, the negative sides
are taboo and fascinating at the same time. There are many examples
in life and in fairy tales of how taboos are irresistible. This also includes the fascination that dictators,
murderers, criminals, vices, etc. have on corresponding
counter-types.
Not only “revolutions devour their children” (Pierre
Vergniaud) but all Its.
"There is no strong desire that you do not have to pay
for." (Elias Canetti)
The Its make all or nothing. Especially nothing.
That is discussed here.
Sacrifice is a part of every second-rate dynamic and
ideology.
The Its need sacrifices. They favor the Self, personal and
lively subjects as sacrifices.
Its need either a) of its own P or b) others as a sacrifice.
Usually, it is connected with each other.
Everything personal can be sacrificed. Very important for
our topic: the sacrifice of health.
How are the Sacrificial-Dynamics?
The second-rate personal dynamics (D²) are determined by the
Its. Their priority is the maintenance of the Its (resp. the
strange Selves). The person can sacrifice itself or others for
that or the person is sacrificed itself. If
P sacrifices too much of him-/herself, P acts in a
self-damaging and sickening way. If a person
sacrifices others (other people, other objects) he/she
will cause others to become ill. This
often goes together.
For example: One-sided love for
one's neighbor (altruism) has above all the
consequence of loss of self-love (and also the
loss of a true love for one's neighbor), as well
as a one-sided self-love (egoism) has above all
the consequence of loss of love for one's
neighbor (but ultimately the egoist comes off
badly, too.)
General: A second-rate Absolute (sA) has above
all the consequence of the loss of the same
first-rate Absolute (but also the loss of the
opposite).
To self-sacrifice: As mentioned before, P longs for an
absolute positive. P is convinced that the It is something
good (the best) although it is not and views something
absolutely negative although it is not so negative. To
achieve the +* and fend off the ‒*, P lives of its own costs,
of its own substance. P is a double loser! P loses the play
and itself.
P may also use the advantages of inversion and lets other
people pay the price for it. The consequences of the inversion
can be transmitted within WPI! It can be transmitted between W
and P and I or within W, P or I.
Concerning mental disorders, we are going to focus on the
dynamics of self-sacrifice:
Here, it is mainly about unconscious dynamics, about
processes, functions and unconscious structures of behavior.
Above all first-rate but also second-rate things are lost.
Since the first are more serious, this loss is at the
forefront.
(For all aspects, see also Summary
table
columns o and P).
Especially the following first-rate dimensions are being lost:
a1
Sense, transcendence, faith and love
a2 Identity, the Self
a3 Truth, reality and opportunities
a4 Unity and variety
a5 Safety and freedom
a6 Basis, center and superstructure
a7 Autonomy and refuge.
Loss of first-rate personal being, life, qualities and connections and the subject-role of P.
1. Sacrifice of the personal wholeness.
2. Sacrifice of the personal relationship to God, which may also
lead to senselessness.
3. Sacrifice of the first-rate personality, which may lead to
apersonalism.
4. Sacrifice of individuality, which may lead to the loss of I to
Non-I.
5. Sacrifice of first-rate parts of spirit, soul and body, which may
lead to mindlessness, soullessness and loss of health.
6. Sacrifice of first-rate love, sexuality, gender-role, which may
cause their loss.
7. Sacrifice of first-rate, actual emotions, which may cause apathy
and deadness.
8. Sacrifice of the own will and voluntariness,
which may lead to abulia and a lack of voluntariness.
9. Sacrifice of actual personal belongings, which may cause personal
poverty.
10. Sacrifice of possibilities and skills, which may cause
powerlessness and weakness.
11. Sacrifice of personal order with the consequence of personal
chaos.
12. Sacrifice of orientation, which leads to a lack of orientation.
13. Sacrifice of personal rights and opportunities of control, which
leads to rightlessness and intemperance.
14. Sacrifice of creativity, which causes a lack of creativity.
15. Sacrifice of own activities with the consequence of inactivity.
16. Sacrifice of first-rate information and knowledge, which may
cause a lack of knowledge and blindness.
17. Sacrifice of opportunities of expression and candor, which
causes mutism and a lack of candor.
18. Sacrifice of own values and meanings, which may cause a loss of values and meaninglessness.
19. Sacrifice of the own past, which may lead to a loss of
experience.
20. Sacrifice of the own time and presence, which may cause
restlessness.
21. Sacrifice of the own future, which may lead to a loss of
perspective.
22. Sacrifice of the own opportunities of corrections and
compensation, which leads to faults and a lack of correction.
23. Sacrifice of the own protection, which causes vulnerability
and defenselessness.
In the Summary
table I have listed these "sacrifices" in column N
with ↓.
More to Aspect 23: Loss of protection. (“The open gates of defense”)
The sacrifice of the own protection and security leads to something that I will call 'the open gates of the defense of the Self'. P is in those areas especially vulnerable and also manipulable. Therefore, a person can be hurt by taking away the +sS or by threatening with a ‒sS. The open gates (or sore points) of the psyche can also be recognized by the fact that P will take something personal because P identifies him-/herself with it.
It seems important to me that despite all the P²-dynamics there is always a rest of first-rate personality left. That is mostly the personal part, that still allows P to make free decisions. That fact is important for therapy purposes and will be discussed more detailed in a later chapter.
This
publication is mainly about self-sacrifice and a lack of
self-protection of P because that represents an important
cause of the emergence of mental disorders. Therefore, I will
discuss the sacrifice of other people only briefly. However,
the mechanisms, as described above, are the same. They are
then focused on other people or the environment so that those
are more endangered to become ill than the person that is
causing the actions.
Equally important is that the health of a person is often
sacrificed by others, esp. if the affected P has little
self-protection.
[In total It-results and
P²-reactions summarized - see Summary
table columns L to V.]
(This chapter is shortened to a great degree. To
read more, view unabridged version or chapter 'Relationship-disorders').
1st Phase: Expansion
and inflation with participation of P (of society),
monopolization, boom.
2nd Phase: Stagnation, crisis,
tip over.
3rd Phase: collapse,
finale.
1st phase: Expansion
P is still
over-identified with +It. P has not yet experienced a reversed
side of the It.
P tries to expand in the sense of the It.
Interphase: Increasing concentration on the needs of the
It; Exclusion of the enemies; Black-white-scheme.
2nd phase: Crisis
P only
stays stable as long as he/she has enough energy to follow +*,
fight against ‒* and to fill 0*. The exertion of force that is
used by P, to stabilize the psychical balance/
the center, is becoming bigger and bigger. This force will be
missing in general life.
In this phase, the It will be experienced as more ambivalent
and negative.
P becomes increasingly a victim of It.
Typical features of this phase:
Ambivalent situations and dilemmas:
There are opposite phenomena that co-exist and keep a stiff balance. There is always the danger of tip over, the loss of balance, or the risk of being torn. The smaller the basis for the equilibria (left and right picture), the more unstable and complex they are. There is no broad base as in W¹, but often only one point (= sA) on which the respective system depends. Here, there is a risk of loss of equilibrium, disruption and ambivalent or dilemma situations. |
(Examples: see unabridged German version. Symbol also Yin-Yang ☯, see below).
Vicious circles can arise between all opposing
It-parts or pages.
Here three possible main courses are shown (similar to electrons on
their tracks with quantum leaps).
They start mostly with pro/+, then because of increasing
disadvantages, they spring to the advantages of contra-part (or to
+0),
and then the same game from the beginning or new games with new sA.
That all at the expense of the person concerned.
There is
chaos at zero point. The affected person is 'dangling in the
air'. Usually, P has distinct symptoms, is vulnerable - and
constantly endangered to fall back into old patterns.
The advantages and disadvantages of the Its are equal. This is
also a point where P has to make decisions.
The zero point is danger and chance at the same time.
In this highly labile state, just before a turnover of the
system, the Its are very aggressive and cause P to be very
agitated (example: Panic-attacks or florid psychoses).
In practice, it is mostly that the person (s)
must sacrifice themselves or others more and more in order
to compensate for the ever-increasing disadvantages in the
system and thus to prevent the downfall of what is their
Absolute, their "Self", even that what they themselves
have become. It is the dynamics of whole societies, of
whole cultures but also of individuals who were destroyed
like this.
For me, Friedrich Nietzsche is a typical example of how in
the course of his life an ever more dangerous,
ever-increasing struggle for his ideals and against his anti-ideals
led to his psychosis.
(Also see:
Crisis and falling ill and 'About
the emergence of paradoxes'.)
3rd phase: Collapse
P is now the final victim/ sacrifice of the It. (Also see: Sacrificial-dynamics,
Crisis and falling ill).
P is now the final victim/ sacrifice of the It. First P is going
down, then his Its.
In this phase, it is typical for the person to fall ill because they
can no longer pay the price for maintaining +sA and the defense
against ‒sA and s0.
It is the dynamics of individuals, but also of entire societies and
entire cultures that were broken in this way.
In this phase the mercilessness of the ruling It towards P shows
itself quite unvarnished. While it seemed the It has given P
absolute importance at the beginning of their interaction, P is now
more and more brutally suppressed and sucked out. P has to sacrifice
himself for his It - or, from P's point of view, P prefers to die
himself before he sacrifices his strange Absolutes.
For me, Friedrich Nietzsche is a typical
example of how in the course of his life an increasingly
dangerous, ever increasing struggle for his ideals and
against his anti-ideals led to psychosis.
Every P² can create a pact with another P²,
fight, or neutralize him/her.
(Symbols:
OO = Pact, # = Opposites, 0 = annulment ).
That means, they create pacts, opposites or neutralize each
other because each of their It/sA -centers has three main
options of reaction: too pro(+), too contra(‒) or too 0.
Each P² is therefore very fast friend or
enemy or indifferent to other P².
Put
in other words: P² tend to love or to hate others
too much, or to ignore them.
The graphic illustrates two
P² with all their
It/sA-interaction-possibilities.
Example: If the first P² absolutized
'wealth', the triangle with the solid line would
represent the pro-area (wealth) with its three sides/corners (+/‒/0) =
advantage, disadvantage and indifference of wealth.
The gray triangle represents the opposite of wealth - poverty - and its three sides/corners. The triangle with the dashed line represents neither wealth nor poverty (0). All three triangles (parts of 1. P²) are connected to each other and dependent on each other. (→ `It as nine-sided triad´). Depending on what side of the It/sA is activated, this will merge or combat or erase a second person's It/sA (or Co-It/sA). Suggesting that the second person is dominated by 'power', the advantages of wealth of the first person would create a pact with the advantages of power and collide with the disadvantages of power etc. |
Opposite It/sA fight or support or neutralize each
other.
• Opposite It/sA fight each other if they are both connoted equally.
(Example: Wealth is +*, asceticism is +*).
• Opposite It/sA support each other and make a pact if they are
connoted opposite.
(Example: wealth is ‒* and asceticism is +*)
• Opposite It/sA neutralize each other if they suppress each other´s
advantages and disadvantages.
(Example: wealth does not matter, asceticism does not
matter).
• Overly
equal P²s make a pact if they are connoted the same.
• Overly equal P²s fight each other if they have opposite
connotations.
• Overly equal P²s neutralize each other if they suppress each
other´s advantages and disadvantages.
When
trying to find a certain cause for a certain result
(e.g., certain actions/ reactions/ symptoms /behavior), one
should not only think about the main cause but also about the
opposite as cause.
A common example is the combination of morality and
immorality. Usually, morals would oppress immorality. However,
the opposite may occur as well if excessive morality causes
immorality. In a relationship, that could cause a hyper-moral
person to cause amoral behavior of others. Or: Excessive
fidelity causes betrayal, fixated love causes hate and so on.
In principle love* views hate* as its enemy. Love* then, is
the strongest remedy² against hate*.
However, excessive love* will promote hate* if love* became
too negatively (too exhausting). Then, love* and hate* create
a pact with each other. Also the other way around if hate*
appears as too negatively, the excessive love* seems to be a
savior.
Further
examples:
-
Masculinism (Machismo) fights feminism and vice versa - but at a
certain point, both create what they fought before.
- Masculinism suppresses women and brings surrogate potency to the
man but in the long run impotence. Impotent men need masculinism
(and pornography) to stay potent, even though they tend to remain
impotent in the long run. Then they have to take sexual enhancers,
which in turn benefits the pharmaceutical industry, which is making
then a pact with the porn industry.
- Exaggerated feminism suppresses men and gives women short
surrogate satisfaction but long-term frigidity. Frigid women need
feminism for surrogate satisfaction, although in a long way they
tend to remain frigid.
- Both masculinism and exaggerated feminism promote homosexual
tendencies.
(→
Aspect 6: Gender, Love, Sex
and The
Opposites and their Dynamics).
Inversed
topics always have two opposite meanings. [176]
Examples:
Because my father drinks too much alcohol, I drink too much as
well. / Because my father drinks too much alcohol, I am not
drinking.
“You are doing fine because you do not have much to do.” / “I
am feeling bad because I have nothing to do.”
“We are so much in debt already, it does not matter if we
spend a few more dollars.” / “We are so much in debt already,
we have to save every penny.”
Her: “I am already ill, I cannot deal with your illness as
well.” / Him: “I thought you would be able to understand my
illness and my situation because you are ill yourself.” Etc.
There can be a special situation if the advantages and
disadvantages (pro and contra) have the same strength. That
may also be the reason, why one person is being desired and
feared at the same time. I may fear or desire the
opposite at the same time. In that case I dear and desire one
thing and its opposite simultaneously. (See
also `Ambivalent and paradoxical
reactions´ ).
Origin of
a disorder of a system or relationship is usually a mental
overload.The affected people react to this overload by using
compromises or emergency solutions. In the emergency they try
to find support and relief in the Relative. Since their
previous Absolute has abandoned them, they establish new
bases, new centers, new strange Selves,
compensatory-Absolutes, or the reactivate old ones.[177]
Often the new center is established within a group/system.
That way, fixed balances are created (usually unknowingly)
that save the system from the feared collapse but with high
costs.
The system, as well as the individual, is stuck in a constant
dilemma: On one hand, there is a desire of changing the
emergency-balance and to end the costs and on the other hand
there are strong tendencies of remaining the homeostasis to
avoid the feared collapse.
The basic patterns of those disorders are equal to the strange
Self disorders and will be found more detailed in that
chapter. In the following section I want to point out the most
important aspects of relationship-disorders.
Such as the psychical disorders in general, the story of
relationship-disorders is about dependence or lack of
relationships. Dependence is mainly caused by false love and
hate. They cannot be held apart because false love also
contains parts of hate and lack of relationship, such as a
person that hates another person, cannot be apart from that
person, and cannot build a real relationship.
Dependence means dependent on sA. sA may be a person, or
something that was absolutized by P.
Example:
A person `A´ may be dependent on two strange-Selves (sS) that
may be achievement* and intellect*.
This person `A´ is dependent on those two factors. They are
important for him-/herself, `A´ is fixated on them. They have
characteristics of an Absolute. `A´ gives them a greater
importance then him-/herself. Whatever we have already
discussed when talking about the strange Self, applies here.
The person `A´ is determined by three main factors: By the
actual Self and two strange-Selves.
Whenever other people create a relationship with person `A´,
where they cooperate with `A's dependence, a collusion arises.
[178]
The direct dependences/ fixations of person `A´ will also
become a dependences/ fixations of other persons/ people. More
precisely: Person `B´ cooperates with the fact that the
strange-Selves of `A´ (achievement* and intellect*) determine
the relationship. Person `B´ is caught in a co-dependence.
These dependencies can only come from one person - but usually
two or more people are involved. In our example, there will be
an additional sS (absolute fidelity towards the partner) of
person `B´ that also is part of the relationship. Person `A´
will also be dominated by that sS. With that, the
interdependence becomes even stronger. The misabsolutizations
are transmitted and determine both of them (or the whole
system). All the affected people then become dependent. On one
side, the sS/sA cause the affected people to stick together,
on the other side they appear as topics, that cause arguments
and disagreements later on.
If we think of multiple people, such as a family (parents, two
kids) that adapted the mentioned absolutizations, which we
will mark as 1*, 2* and 3*, the situation will be as listed
below:
Illustration: Four people have the same
absolutizations (1*, 2*, 3*), that oppress their own Self.
All of the affected people are therefore
dominated by the named strange Absolutes.
Similar constellations can be found in
bigger groups or societies.
There are other illustrations as well:
Left
hand side: People circle around three, second-rate fix
points. They create an unstable wholeness.
Motto: “We (A, B, C, D) agree that there are 3
priorities in our lives (here: achievement*,
intellect* and fidelity*).
They are our unconditional goals in life. They give us self-affirmation, fortune, sense, stability etc. We submit ourselves to them.” Right hand side: Possible “orbits” of these three persons around the three sA. |
Although those people are individuals, they are mentally
connected with each other through the sA and represent a
whole, a system of collusion. One sees, that the system of
collusion is marked by the fact that it does not have one
center but multiple centers which are orbited by these
persons. They can be compared to fix points although they are
really not. They may be called second-rate centers or
second-rate fix points. The affected people “wobble” around
them. Their orbit is more similar to an ellipse than an actual
circle (Greek: ellipsis = deficiency).
[179]
One may also refer to it as an
unconscious, strange community-self, an unconscious, joint
pseudo-identity, or as collective, strange absolutization/
collective It, which are the basis of those systems.
This system is dominated by a certain spirit. Everything of the
actual Self, such as identity, right of self-determination, self
esteem, self-security and so on, is made dependent on the
collective, strange Absolutes (sA). Therefore, there is some
sort of pressure to adapt for all the members of the system.
Everybody has to function a certain way in order for the system
to work. Even though the sA give the affected people what they
cannot achieve themselves (at least they believe so) but at the
same time, they are like holes that have to be stuffed
constantly or like predators that have to be fed all the time.
The food that they like the most is the Self. The sA partly
protect the affected people but also expect them to give up
their Selves.
The ambivalent role of fixated familiar mindsets, taboos,
principles or ideologies was mentioned before.
The created wholeness with its different centers is only
stable as long as the members confirm it to be so. As soon as
one person questions one point, or does not fulfill the
expected role anymore, the whole system becomes unstable. As
long as that does not happen, the system can be compared to a
conspiratorial unity with strict rituals. If someone does not
follow those rituals, that person has to expect sanctions.
Instead of achieving free self-determination, everyone is
stuck in the circle of common absolutizations. Family
therapists also refer to this as 'family-myth'. Ferreira said
that such as any other myth, that the family-myth expresses
shared beliefs about humans and their relationship within
families. They are convictions, that are accepted and viewed
as something holy, although they include a great variety of
falsehood. The family-myth dictates the member's roles. Those
roles and duties are accepted fully, even if they are
absolutely wrong and fatuous in reality. Nobody would
dare to reassess them nor to change them.[180] If a
member of the family/system tries to play a role other than
the one assigned, it will be seen and treated as a betrayal.
[181] Even if
the change would be beneficial for all members, it is
initially viewed as danger that causes resistance. The
resistance is stronger the more one or another member of the
system has something to lose, although in the long run it is
the other way around.
Everything in this world can be absolutized and then take a
central position. As mentioned before, certain ideologies,
ideals, taboos and people or their ways of thinking are most
commonly absolutized. This makes them the cause of collusions.
Especially concerning relatives, a person often mistakenly
believes that it is love to give up their right to
self-determination and to place the other person at the center
of their being.
It can be distinguished,:
• identical (or symmetric) collusion: People who are part of
the collusion have the same sA.
• complementary collusion: The absolutizations complement each
other.
• mirror-image collusion: The sA are primarily opposites (+sA
# ‒sA) but the reversed sides match each other (= pact of the
opposites).
In the example given above, all the affected people have the
same fixated centers. The main motto of the complementary
collusion is: “I fulfill your unconditional desires if you
fulfill mine in return.” That kind of 'teamwork' is even
stronger if the members have certain talents - or even: if
everyone must do it. So if one member has to achieve a certain
thing, and another person has to give it to him.
Example - different strange Absolutes, that work in a
complementary collusive way:
At first, these people are like in a wheel of fortune: their ideals *
and taboos * complement each other and they can both be just as the
other one needs them. At a later stage, it becomes clear that they
have to be the way the other person needs them. The absolutized
positive* has to be given at any cost, whereas the absolutized
negative* has to be defended at any cost. These or other collusions are only possible
if those affected people
are not determined by the actual
Self but by sA.
People may only be dependent within the system
and collusively connected if they are also
sA-determined themselves.
Whether it
is an identical or a complementary collusion: The initial
wheel of fortune eventually turns into a vicious circle (see
below). Since the dependence is mainly unconsciously, it takes
a long time to analyze the patterns of collusion. The affected
people initially have a feeling of a strong common bond such
as “We are creating an ideal whole together”, or “We agreed
that we will always be there for each other”, “Your luck is my
luck”, “Only you make me happy”, or even “It does not matter
how I am, as long as you are feeling good.”
Such symbiotic feelings are experienced as very pleasant by
people, mainly in the beginning of a relationship. That is the
+* side of collective misabsolutizations but that is
inextricably connected to a ‒* and a 0-side. The core of the
later combats can already be seen inside of them.
This situation could be symbolized as follows:
Illustration: symbol of collusion
between a man and a woman. [182]
Both cores (Selves) are not free/independent, as it would be
optimal but overlap each other. One is within the core of the
other, one is the other´s strange Self.
Left: The man determines the woman. Center: She determines
him. Right: The mutual heteronomy put together.
Both have
a symbiotic, dependent relationship. He is within her core and
she is within his core. In the beginning, they are
complementary, although he is a strange Self for her and she
is a strange Self for him. One is the other´s
self-replacement. Such as: One is the other´s happiness
because they cannot be happy enough on their own. Therefore
each one also has to be the other person's happiness. Or one
is the other´s compensatory self-protection, self-esteem,
self-determination etc. One´s desire becomes the other´s
command. Each one has primary responsibility for the other one
as well, which also limits the own right of
self-determination. That also means: All people that play a
part in a collusion give up their self-determination (partly).
They then live a secondary, non-actual, heteronomous life,
instead of a life that is based on voluntariness and
self-determination.
Everybody is in control of everyone else. If a woman has a lot
of sex appeal, she might dominate the man.
But at the same time, she makes to become the sex object of
the man who therefore dominates her, too. Both of them
dominate and are dominated at the same time. They are
experiencing a +*(thrill) emotion if they receive whatever
matches their +sA. But they also feel bad (‒*) if they lose it
or if they are being confronted with their ‒sA. Then, there
will be a crisis.
Another picture:
Both work with each other like (uneven) gear-wheels:
Wherever one person has a deficiency, the other person has
something to
give.
A lot of times, the patterns of collusion are cross-generational and can be found in the relationships of the
parents and the children. In the next generation, one often finds the
same sA (or collusive pattern) or the opposite! You may think of it as
many gear-wheels, like a clock mechanism. Functioning is the top
priority. The individuals represent the wheels in a gearbox (family,
group, state). It is not surprising that some people feel like they
are only a small gearwheel within a giant gearbox? If you look at the
bigger picture you will realize that every single person (wheel) has
to function/work in a certain way because the person him-/herself and
all the others need it that way. Everybody has to turn him-/herself
and all the others into slaves of their own strange Absolutes.
There are
different sorts of dependence of the affected people within
the system of collusion. It may come mainly from one person,
whereas the others are just following (unknowingly).
However, it is more common that all of the affected people are
part of something that causes dependence and that also causes
the others of the system to subjugate. To a certain extent,
that is normal. Every person is somewhat heteronomous and
transfers this to other people. There, the person is
manipulable, corruptible, suppressed and debased.
As strong as the bonding powers may be, there will be more and
more of a counter-tendency within the system, of trying to
burst the bonds and to leave the system - especially when it
comes to the members of the system that have to pay the
highest cost for these fixations.
Typical Examples for Collusions
• Old,
wealthy man and young, poor woman (complementary collusion)
• Prostitution: The man is giving the woman money in order to
have sex, which he needs (or believes to need),
she gives him sex and receives the money she
needs.
• Male helper - ill woman
• Admiring mother - thankful son
• Strict parents - obedient daughter.
• Harmony seeking woman who desires to be loved - man who
seeks acknowledgment.
• Partners
who correspond in anti-sex moral (identical collusion): Both
have a fixated view: Sex is dirty, they fear sex (‒*).
Advantage: No quarrel , no conflicts;
Disadvantage: No pleasure.
• Him: addicted to alcohol and therefore impotent; Her: cannot
be alone, gives him alcohol, causes him (unknowingly?) to stay
impotent and prevents him from being interested in other
women. He stays with her and secures his nursing and she does not have to
stay alone.
In literature the following examples are usually
mentioned: The collusion of a helper and a person in need (=
oral collusion), a person who idealizes and a person that has
been idealized (= narcissistic collusion), ruler and sufferer
(= anal-sadistic collusion), sexual leader and the one being
led (= phallic-oedipal collusion). Additional examples:
Sadomasochistic relationship; Familiar collusion with poster
child and black sheep; Victim-offender-collusion and so
on. [183]
There is an endless amount of such patterns of dependence.
They can appear in relationships, families, or other groups
and societies.
What is the Common of these Collusion Systems?
• They are
being created if misabsolutizations and negations dominate a
system.
• Factual issues, that interfere with the sA, are taken
personally.
• The affected person is dependent on his/her own strange Self
and the ones of others.
• Everybody in the system is conditioned to those sS. Everyone
in those areas is manipulable, corruptible,
alienated, dependent and
became an object there.
• Everybody experiences the common sS as more important than
the own actual Self.
• Everybody becomes an expedient (to reach the sA).
•
Everybody is in the area of
the others Self.
• Everybody only loves him-/herself under certain
circumstances if the sS-requirements are being fulfilled.
• Everybody does not love him-/herself and others enough.
• The members sacrifice (partly) the most precious thing they
have, the actual Self, for something Relative..
• In the beginning, the collusion has more subjective
advantages than disadvantages to offer.
• Everybody gives up his/her first-rate responsibility for
him-/herself and the others. At first that appears to be
relieving. Nobody has first-rate responsibility anymore, which
looks like a perfect deal.
Eventually, that luck of fortune turns into
a kind of clock mechanism.|
While the advantages of the collusion are in the foreground in the beginning, the high is coming to an end in this phase. The system is still working but it takes much more effort. The advantages and disadvantages of collusion are still balanced. The system is in a deadlock-position. Everybody gives the others what he/she has to give and is still able to meet the requirements. The reciprocity is still balanced. Since the advantages of the collusion become less, the system begins to be in a dilemma: The previous balance becomes too expensive but venturing something new seems too risky. The question is: Who has to pay for the dilemma? And: Who is taking the effort to solve the common problem?
"Kill your neighbor as yourself" (Andre´ Glucksmann)
In the
crisis, all the extremes become more apparent. The system
loses its balance.
(See also `Reversal
into the opposite´).
A crisis is developed if the compensation forces of the
members are exceeded. It is the time of mutual set-off, blame
assignments, in which everyone also has a piece of right.
(Common example: He drinks because she is nagging, she is
nagging because he drinks).
The crisis happens along with similar intra-psychical
processes. The crisis of the collusive relationship is
preprogrammed if the affected people did not find a deeper
solution so far. [184]
The disadvantages of those relationship-patterns become more
apparent:
One is in control of the other. Everybody becomes more
manipulable and corruptible. Everyone gives too much and sucks
the other at the same time. They all become more and more
irritated. That becomes understandable, as both experience
some kind of love-deficiency and the compensatory-love is not
giving enough. Both desire true love more and more. The only
option they see is to give love by fulfilling each others
sS-requirements. Since the affected people only love each
other under certain prerequisites, it is hard to keep up the
love, especially if the other person's love seems to disappear
as well. ”I sacrificed myself for you." "I did not love myself
anymore, I only loved you.” Sentences like that can be
heard in almost every relationship-crisis. Both experience
more pressure the more the crisis grows. Both of them have to
put much more effort into the relationship, to be happy. The
freedom they have becomes steadily smaller and the dependency
becomes steadily bigger.
In this
phase, everyone feels like being the other person´s object of
satisfaction (not without good reason). And indeed: They abuse
each other and themselves (usually unknowingly) to keep their
own +sA and to fend the ‒sA. The young, poor woman (example
above) will accuse the old, wealthy man of viewing her as
sex-object, whereas the man will accuse the woman of
only being after his money. They are both somewhat right when
saying: “You make me dependent on you. You suck me dry. I am
only an object for you, only an instrument to satisfy your
wishes (sA)”.
In this situation, the affected people argument with
half-truths, where they view themselves as the only victim.
They do not mention the other half of the truth: That they
allowed the other person to act as an offender or that they
offered to be treated as a victim. They will say “you do not
love me”, whereas they do not love themselves either.
They view themselves as losers and the partner as the winner,
which is not accurate. They ignore the fact that the main
reason for the crisis is not the lack of love to the other
person but to something Relative. It is love on the roundabout
way, “wrong” and fixated love, and all people included in the
situation come off badly. Everybody is betrayed. However, the
affected people usually have no overview. They do not realize
what kind of unconscious dynamics caused them to be victims.
Those people remain in a vicious circle, such as “I will only
give you what you need if you give me what I need”, or “If you
do not love me anymore, I will not love you either.”
Soon, there will be a fight. The affected people entrench
themselves and fight for the survival of the mental life. In
reality, they fight for the survival of their strange Selves.
They are convinced that they cannot live without them. The
partners usually argument on different levels: On the
sS-level, or on the Self-level. The sS-levels are contrary in
this phase and also contradict the Self-level. Therefore,
those people live and talk at cross purposes with each other.
The communication, argumentation and
eventually the fight of the partners is mainly about the sS*
(arrows).
People take different standpoints and therefore talk at cross
purposes. Direct communication has stopped (||).
Such as
the strange Absolutes were a big part of the relationship in
the beginning, they are also the main focus in the fights.
Jürg Willi: ”Partners often represent themselves as a
polarized unit that is being held together by a common issue
of dispute”.[185]Unconsciously
but accurately the partners injure their strange Selves. Those
are the sore points because there is no actual Self in those
spheres (no self-protection, no self-esteem, no
self-identity). Thus the attacks on the Absolutes will be
experienced as an attack on the respective person
him-/herself. [186]
Therefore, the attacked person feels like he/she has to fight
for his/her right of existence, even for his/her life. The use
of absolute-terms such as “always”, “never”, “definitely”,
“impossible” is another indicator that the conflicts take
place in the absolute-sphere of the person.
Let's take
another look at the crisis situation using the example of the
boat without keel (= without + A), where two people maintain
an expensive balance. Here, the complex dynamics in which the
system members are located, is particularly clear:
They both stabilize and burden each other at the same time.
They act right and wrong simultaneously. Right because they
stabilize the system and wrong because the stabilization is of
a very high cost and because they do not risk a change. So
everyone can rightly accuse the other person of being wrong.
But with the same right everyone will be able to assert that
he stabilizes only the system and a change makes danger.
“You are the only reason I lean back so far if I did not
do that, you would fall into the water.” “That is your way of
thanking me for my sacrifices that you're blaming me now.”
The other person may argue with the fact that he/she has
to lean out even further to balance the boat out because the
other person is already leaning out so far. Both sides may
have good intentions but receive only criticism for it. The
affected person might even query him-/herself in silence. That
way the circle is closed: I, or the others, or everyone is
doing it wrong. "How one does it, it is wrong." The system
destroys itself, although nobody wanted it.
[187]
It is a fallacy to
think that a person could free oneself by taking a counter
position. The person remains in the system and stabilizes it
even more. Only a positive destabilization (sitting
relaxed inside of the boat, or -better-
choosing a boat with a keel), or leaving the system
will help. However, that is usually viewed negatively by the
other members of the system because the system temporarily
becomes unstable.
If one member does not fulfill the common sA-requirements
anymore and stops being manipulable, or he/she will not be
able to be part of the stabilization of the system - then the
system comes into a crisis and this member will encounter Resistance (this is internal and external).
If a
system faces the danger of decompensation, it can be compared
to a boat that is about to keel over. One of the most
important tries to stabilize the (family-)system, is the
emergency-solution with illness.
[188] The
person sacrifices his/her health to stabilize the system.
He/she is victim and martyr for the system.
Barbara Gordon describes in her book “I´m dancing
as fast as I can” particularly impressively the overly
high price for a "happy" but dependent relationship and how
quickly it can tip over to its opposite.
“I would rather be sick than seeing the others being sick”,
“It is better to be sick than to call into question the
family.” Such are the unconscious mottoes of the patient
and he/she does not have to question its own absolutizations.
Since the system becomes more and more self-destroying (the
more sA-determined it is), the costs will be raising. Not
everyone is paying the same price though. Even if the index
patient often pays the highest price, it will nevertheless be
sensible for the therapist to accept all members of the system
and their situation and not to take a single-point position.
Only if there is an accepting attitude it will be possible to
try actual and deeper solutions which are usually painful for
the included people, although they are an advantage in the
long run.
(See also `Resistance´ and
concerning therapy `The
umbilical cord´).
This chapter is mainly concerned with the
development of symptoms or mental disorders by focusing on the
various causative sA / Its or complexes. S. Freud imagined
that psychic powers can act such as physical forces with
vectors. Then the sum of the energy would be converted into a
symptom. Something similar is true of the field theory of Kurt
Lewin, which states that "out of an arrangement of
psychologically relevant forces (vector forces), individual
behavior emerges." [189]
Von Uexküll created the term of “changing function units”. [190]
These conceptions correspond to those of this thesis, which
regard the sS/Its and their complexes as dominating "function
units" with corresponding vectors.
I assume the following hypotheses:
• Symptoms are equivocal because different
reasons may cause symptoms to occur.
• Every inversion has the potential to
cause/support any symptom, although with varying probability.
• Psychical symptoms
may have organic causes.
• Symptoms may be signs of an aberration or
a misbehavior of the affected person him-/herself.
• The appearance of symptoms may also have
nothing to do with the person concerned but originate from
other sources (environment, other people, etc.)
Rarely are they from +
A. [191]
• Finally, symptoms can also be an expression of
positive development; as in withdrawal, when the
individual tries to relativize the It/sA-complexes on
which he is dependent.
•
Ordinarily, many factors together will cause a symptom or a
mental disorder.
The sorts of conditions are similar to the ones of the
emergence of weather or of accidents. The weather forecast is
probably still easier than the 'forecast' of symptoms. In most
cases, the context of cause and symptoms is hardly able to
indicate. Some conditions seem more constant, others more
variable. Organic or even genetic causes are more constant,
whereas psychical or mental influences are more
variable. Even a very brief influence may cause a
symptomatology, such as the last straw will break the camel's
back.
The emergence of
symptoms appears to be dependent
on the following factors:
• What kind of It/sA are being effective? The kind of It/sA also determines the
effects.
What
effects does the +sA, or the ‒sA have? The +sA mostly attracts
(addiction), whereas the ‒sA causes fear.
What is the difference in the effects of a
+sA in the shape of a person (idol*) and an object, or
ideology (success*)?
• How is the interaction and how influences that affect the
person?
• How is the person structured? Organically or psychically.
• Where are their “black”, “white” or 0 points, where P is
seducible, able to be frustrated, or without answer?
• If a dysfunction has been established, it will most likely
affect the area, where the certain function is
necessary or dominant. (Regarding psychosomatic
medicine: skin: mostly contact; gastro-intestinal tract:
mostly ingestion and excretion; liver and pancreas: mostly
processing/digesting; kidney: mostly excretion;
larynx: mostly output of information etc.) However,
some authors exaggerate those connections.
• How are the outer circumstances?
• How is the further inner/outer interaction between all the
effective powers?
There are many factors that determine what kind of
psychical or
mental disorder is being developed.
Or as Heimann said: The symptom is the “Common end of
complicated condition connections.“ [192]
As mentioned, I believe that inversions play a big role as
primary causes.
In addition, I am convinced that the cause of mental disorder
is less specific than generally meant. One reason for the
small specificity of the causes can be found within the “spreading
and compression” of the effects (discussed below).
E. Bleuler
writes: "Contrary to previous expectations, one and the same
damage, which has a psychological effect, may lead to many
symptoms, and one and the same symptom may have many causes."[193]
Similar A.R. Brunoni: “… patients with different mental
disorders can share similar symptoms, whereas those with
the same diagnosis might have different symptoms.”
[A.R. Brunoni in http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rpc/v44n6/0101-6083-rpc-44-06-0154.pdf , 2017.]
L. Ciompi has attributed these experiences to various
generalization and abstraction processes.
In the context of this publication, that means:
All It/sA and their complexes scatter in such a way that they
can cause many disorders, such as all pr disorders may be
caused by various It/sA and their complexes.
None of those entities has only one effect but multiple
effects with three contradicting ones each (pro-, contra- and
0). If we assume that every person is carrying a great number
of such complexes, then that also means that there is a great
variety of different factors of effects.
Read from left to right, those graphics illustrate the
following aspects of spreading and compression:
- The picture on the far left illustrates how one It (*) is
the cause of three opposite vectors. [194] There
is one main-vector (solid arrow) and two side-vectors (dashed
arrows). The main-vector is based on the dominating It-part
(here: +pro-sA ) and the side-vectors are based on the
contra-sA and the 0-part of the It. Every It “scatters” in
three different directions. Even if there is only one
main-effect seen superficially, the side-effects have a latent
existence.
- The picture in the middle shows how different vectors of two
Its work together:
In our example, the main-effects and the side-effects of the
two Its potentiate in a way that creates compression. The top
compression has a positive connotation (such as a positive
condition), the middle has a negative connotation (negative
condition), and the bottom compression has a 0 connotation
(deficit).
- The right picture illustrates how the situation within a
person can be imagined:
The two Its (*) that are located in the absolute sphere of a
person (the Self) cause the described dysfunctions or
disorders in the relative-sphere.
Spreading and compression illustrated as 3 stones
that were thrown into the water.
They cause “spreading” as well as overlaps (“compression”).
Also, there are different centers and distortions.
In the figurative sense, one can say that symptoms develop
where the "waves" overlap. And that their origin and location
(kind of symptom) also depends on the "water quality"
(condition of the system) and on the shore (ambient
conditions), at which the waves are reflected.
Spreading and Compression in More Detail
In the following graphic I tried to explain the
effects of spreading and compression in the example of the
absolutization in aspect 14 (truth / lie).
Notes:
1. Here are shown only 21 aspects.[195]
2. In itself,
the spreading actions come from attitudes (ideologies) that are
not listed here but are listed in the Summary
table in column E.
About spreading:
In the left column of the chart, the different aspects are
listed and it is being illustrated, how the absolutization of
aspect 14 causes potential factors of spreading on all of the
other aspects.
It can be differentiated between a main vector and many
side-vectors.
Examples
1. Frank is lying to John. Following aspect 14, John will
experience a disturbance of truth. Since the lie is hurting
his self-sphere, the “whole John” is affected. That means that
it is not only the disturbance of truth that is developing
within John but (at least potentially) a disorder of the
entire psychical sphere (all aspects): a more or less
severe disorder is being developed of his I, of his
relationships, of his inner structures and psychic conditions,
ownership, opportunities, orders, orientations, freedom,
success, reality, behavior, information, values, qualities,
past, time, perspective, love, protection and safety (and so
on). Those aspects are differentially affected. This becomes quite clear
when we specify what exactly Franz's lie was. Let us
pretend that Frank lied when he said: “John, your wife is
cheating on you!”. John will not only internalize the lie
itself but it will also affect the relationship and
the intimacy to his wife. He will probably also feel
worthless, be sad, feel some kind of loss, worry about the
future, become tenser, dig in the past and so on. As
mentioned before, those possibilities are illustrated in a
simple way, as if the lie would hit a defenseless,
uncritical John. However, an affected person will have
some defense-mechanisms or solutions, which decide what is
defended, internalized or solved. Seeing how difficult it
is to analyze such a simple example, makes one realize how
complicated such occurrences are in reality.
2. A woman is told by a doctor that she has cancer. If this
information becomes of absolute relevance for her, it will
affect the entire person, all the pr aspects, and it will
cause certain changes and reactions (as illustrated in the
table above).
3. As mentioned above, it could also be illustrated how all
ideologies are affecting all the aspects (if they are defined
as absolutized ideas).
On the right hand side of the “possibilities of spreading”, I
marked a gray column with ~. This column symbolizes that the
spreading factor meets an (usually) unknown personal so-being
(genes, experiences, predisposition) that also determines the
characteristics and the dynamics. Due to the individual
variety I can mention it only briefly.
About
compression:
On the right hand side of the chart, disorders of
functions and second-rate actions of aspect 14 are listed as
they may be developed as consequences of absolutizations.
Focusing on the first example, they are mostly created by an
absolutized lie but may also be caused by any other aspect =
“compression”.
Another example: If we start from a sexual impotence, it
cannot only have arisen directly from disturbances in this
aspect (here Asp. 2o) but also from disturbances of all other
aspects - e.g. through an ego disorder, disturbance of
relationship, by organic disturbances, by state or sensory
disturbances, misconditionings, misorientations, inhibitions
etc.
About the Lack of Specificity of the Causes and Consequences
I am
convinced, that the fairly big lack of specificity of the
causes of mental disorders is also the reason for the lack of
specificity of the theories that try to explain the different
psychical /psychosomatic illnesses. They seem to be
exchangeable at a certain point, as you can see when comparing
theories of genesis of different illnesses such as anorexia,
rheumatism, depression, fibromyalgia, migraine, stutter etc.
One could call it the law of incompleteness of psychological
knowledge and the discriminability
of the causes of psychological occurrence. I see a big
resemblance if not even common roots, in the incompleteness
theorems by K. Gödel. [196]
I also see parallels to the theory of spectrum disorders.[197]
A sketchy
superficial attempt to derive symptoms/illnesses
from simple preconditions. Examples:
• Fear, caused by:
1. losing +sA, or fear of its
disadvantages.
2. occurrence of ‒sA.
3. – of 0.
If something becomes +sA, then I will be scared that I
cannot fulfill its demands or that I could lose it.
If something becomes ‒sA, I
will be scared that it will become. If something becomes 0, I will
be scared that I have nothing at all.
• Schizophrenia: If splittings are in the foreground,
especially if one or more ambivalent Its determine the person for a longer time.
(Otherwise see Causes
for schizophrenia in 'Psychiatry').
• Acoustic hallucinations: `P² listens too much to what
other P's say´. P² hears voices of the `homunculus'. (For
details, see Hallucinations).
• Eating disorders: By absolutizing in the areas of reception
and possession in general and eating and similar topics
specifically.
• Depression: loss of +sA, while ‒sA or s0 are dominating.
• Mania: Absence of ‒sA, s0 and +A, while +sA (that P is
identified with) is dominating.
• Obsessive-compulsive disorder: only if certain +sA are being
fulfilled and ‒sA are being fended, the patient
will feel
secure.
(Further see part `Psychiatry´)
Summary: The psychical symptoms
are usually ambiguous, sometimes equivocal and contradicting.
That means that they usually have a pro- and a contra-meaning.
Therefore, the opposite interpretation of a symptom is very
likely, too.
Regarding
the role and the meaning of illness and health, I assume the
following hypotheses:
• Suffering /illness/symptoms as well as well-being/health,
are Relatives.
• Every of this Relative may have a positive or a negative (or
0) meaning /relevance objectively.
• Subjective feelings and objective situations are often not
congruent.
• Suffering /illness or well-being/health, which function
itself as sA, may have qualitatively equal
effects/consequences, or opposite and paradoxical
effects/consequences.
• To gain a +sA, or to fend off a ‒sA, P may sacrifice his/her
health.
• At a high cost, illness may save us from the excessive
demands of sA. Illness may force us to
do what we are too scared to do (or have no
will): to relativize the power of the sA. [198]|
Examples
- For + sufferings: many crises, such as cord clamping, birth
pain, pain of parting, pain after surgery, withdrawal, rehab,
compassion.
- `Bad healths´: If they are based on the expense of others.
Similar: Actual suffering and substitute-suffering.
Is there
'actual' and 'non-actual' suffering/illness?
• Actual suffering
(suffering¹). Actual = usually fateful, guiltless (regarding
the affected person).
• Substitute-suffering
= indirect, shifted, senseless, unnecessary or guilty
suffering. Too much suffering of the relatively negative.
Or suffering because it is profitable (→ Morbid
Gain).
C.G. Jung came up with the hypothesis: “Neurosis is always a
substitute for legitimate suffering”. Neuroses would be the
suffering from the non-actual. So, whoever avoids actual
suffering, will face substitute-suffering.
With my words: Substitute-suffering emerges if the
requirements of the It (and the It requires a lot) are not
being fulfilled and that´s why the It punishes the
person. These costs, usually in shape of a symptom or an
illness, means also a partial self-abandonment of P².
I.e. P² has to sacrifice a part of the Self to satisfy the It.
But: In the long run,
the substitute-suffering
will be greater than the actual one.
This also means:
Accepting the actual suffering will diminish the substitute-suffering
tremendously.
(→
First
A then B)
"More stress than in Auschwitz there was hardly anywhere else,
and right there were the typical psychosomatic diseases that
are so much taken for stress-related, virtually disappeared
from the earth."[199]
An
additional question to the one that was just discussed is if
illnesses/symptoms have a sense.
Illness is relative. Therefore I believe that it can only be
either relatively sensible or relatively senseless.
In individual cases that would be hard to determine.
A few examples will illustrate the difficulty of
determination:
If the dentist puts us through pain by pulling out a tooth,
then it is a sensible pain.
If a woman gives birth to a child, she will suffer it as a
very sensible event. However, if a woman is being raped, that
pain/ suffering becomes senseless to me. [200]
Symptoms that are based on the +A are usually very sensible,
such as withdrawal phenomenons, or warning signs by excessive
demands (such as burn-out).
The symptoms and illnesses that are in the focus of this
publication and that are caused by inversion neither appear as
absolutely sensible, nor as senseless. Most of the times they
are an expression of emergency-, or substitute-solutions that
come along with substitute-suffering and therefore also some
kind of “substitute-sense/reason”.
Definition:
gain, that an ill person receives from his/her illness.
[201]
Usual classification: (based on S. Freud)
Primary morbid gain: inner/subjective gain.
Secondary morbid gain: outer/objective gain (retirement,
rest).
Tertiary morbid gain: gain for the environment of the ill
person.
I distinguish:
1) normal morbid gain
2) second-rate, “neurotic” morbid gain.
About 1)
“Normal” morbid gain:
Based on the hypothesis that no Relative is absolutely
positive or absolutely negative, it is also normal that
illness also has a positive part. That case is very common.
One is ill and stays at home, does not have to work and is
probably treated well and so on. That is normal and there is
no need for treatment.
About 2) This is about the case when illness or the causes of
illness became something too positive that is causing more
advantages than disadvantages for the affected person. It can
be compared to the morbid gain determined by S. Freud. This
second-rate, or 'neurotic' morbid gain (which does not mean
that it is only found when neuroses appear) mostly occurs if
illnesses or its causes have no relative but absolute
importance and therefore became sA. That means that the
affected person needs the advantages of the illness to
maintain mental stability. Thereby they gain relevance and
power, which lets their dynamics appear so confusing.
From the point of view of P², the disease prevents worse (loss
of +sA/ occurrence of ‒sA). With the illness, P² has an alibi
when it comes to the demands of It/sA. With the sacrifice of
health, the subjectively best can be maintained and the
subjectively worst can be avoided. The illness allows P² to be
excused and to be reconciled with sA. A major disadvantage,
however, is that the inversion consequences persist. These are
above all: partial self-abandonment and further on disease.[202]
Morbid gain in detail: Illness may allow a
person finding sense in life (if it cannot be found without
illness); Illness may allow to find an identity (if it cannot
be found without); Illness may cause security (one
is used to the role as a patient so that it gives
security); Illness may allow gaining
autonomy; Illness may allow to maintain the Ego or at least
the strange Self; Illness may allow to live an easier life
(protect ones self from requirements and overextension);
Illness may give more time; Illness may become an important
weapon; Illness may allow to manipulate people; Illness may
cause to receive more love and attention from others; Illness
may give more freedom; [203] Illness may allow proceeding
one's own will; Illness may allow living aggression or other
negative feelings; Illness may allow to hold on to old habits;
Illness may cause more orientation and order in one's life.
Illness often has an alibi-function and is a relieving
mechanism of self-punishment to be free from actual (or
imagined) guilt. Illness may cause balance within the
person/the system that is of high cost etc.
Illness as
a protection against the negative* can also be understood as a
mirror image, of the '+list' above. Illness may be a
protection against the senselessness of life; Illness may be a
protection against the loss of identity and alienation;
Illness may be a protection against insecurity, dependence and
the loss of the Self. [204].[205]
Illness may also protect from the loss of all +*.[206]
The listings make it more obvious that the ('neurotic') morbid
gain is only a substitute-gain/
substitute-protection of high cost. However, it is also an emergency solution, that may save one's life in an emergency
situation. Therefore, it should not be viewed as taboo.
(For more information see the unabridged version).
Example: An anorexic young woman compensates her dependence on
her parents, by dominating with her illness over her parents,
thus securing a substitute independence. At the same time, the
dominance and control of the parents remain untouched. On the
other hand, questionable independence on the one hand and
questionable dominance, on the other hand, keep the balance
with the price of the disease. Changing the role of one system
member would create a crisis that is normal in this process of
detachment. But since, like every crisis, it does not
automatically end in a positive emergence or solution, there
is also the risk of a failure and those people concerned then
avoid these crises, however somebody has to pay some price for
it.
Obviously there are correlations between God1 and
mental health, because whoever believes that he is absolutely loved
and nothing last can happen to him is also more resilient. But: even
the most devout can get sick.
Even God1 can
cause suffering or even make somebody sick, albeit rarely.
Why?
The positive Absolute is God1 and
not health and well-being, just as suffering and sickness are not
absolutely negative. They are Relativa. This means that the relative
positive (health, well-being, etc.) can also be negative and, on the
other hand, the relative negative (illness, suffering, etc.) can
also be positive. And that also means that positive illness,
suffering etc. can come from the positive Absolute, i.e. from God1,
and negative health, well-being etc. can come from the negative
Absolute (‒A).
But since health and illness are predominantly positive resp.
negative, that´s why the origin of the predominant negative from the
absolute positive (God1)
resp. the origin of the predominant positive from the absolute
negative (−A) is the exception.
These abstract assumptions also find their concrete form in
human relationships. If we see the relationship between God1 and
us like a love relationship between people, it becomes clear that
negative feelings / suffering / or even injuries can also come from
a loving person, although the motivation behind it is a positive
one. This motivation from God1 is
just as difficult for us humans to recognize as our children often
fail to recognize the importance of frustration or punishment. Both
the killer and the surgeon hurt us, even though the motives behind
them are completely opposite. On the one hand, you can tell someone
bitter truths and thereby hurt them, but you can help - on the other
hand, you can spoil someone and thereby cause them harm. Incorrect
consideration, avoidance of suffering, absolutization of health and
well-being etc. are as questionable as their opposite. Equally
questionable are some “Christian” views that see every suffering or
disease as a punishment from God or those that postulate an
unconditional connection between God and healing. Even though God
does not cause "negative suffering", He obviously allows it.
Dedicated to my grandson Felix.
Theodicy is an attempt to
answer the question of why a good and all-powerful God permits the
occurrence of evil. Or: Why God does not fulfill some prayers? Can God
be justified? (Theodicy).
The problem of theodicy is one of the most important problems of
theology, and perhaps of humanity in general.
Because, as with all metaphysical problems, a solution in the
scientific sense is not possible - I try a credible explanations.
Theologians usually distinguish between the
following "evils":
1. The "moral evils" (what people do to themselves)
2. The "natural evils" (natural disasters,
transience)
Main sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#Jewish_anti-theodicy, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodizee
,
https://lehrerfortbildung-bw.de/u_gewi/religion-rk/gym/bp2004/fb1/3_r_7_8/8_leid/3_aus/m8_2_m8_4_gott_u_leid_interrel.pdf 2020
Distinguished from this are painful, but appropriate,
positive circumstances such as processes of cutting the cord,
"growing pains", meaningful frustrations, etc. That means we
experience some things painfully, although it is of use to us.
Thus it would be wrong if God or parents would eliminate this
"positive suffering" towards children.
It
should also be considered that every earthly suffering,
including death, from the point of view of God, or according to
Christian faith, ultimately (!) has only relative significance.
Therefore, God only needed a relative justification, which I am
trying to do here.
(See `Relativity of
Illness and Health (resp. Death and Life)´ and `Role
and Meaning of Illness and Health´. )
1. The "moral evils"
Regarding the causation of the “moral evils”,
theologians largely agree that they are the result of the mistakes
/ sins of people since God has given people the freedom to act in
this way. (`free will defense´). Here God appears justified
because it is a token of his love for us when he gives us the
freedom to do evil against his will, because a relationship
without freedom of choice is not love.
2. The "natural evils".
This means: suffering is not directly caused by
humans, but by natural disasters, transience, some diseases, etc.
- evils, therefore, which are already given to man and are present
everywhere in nature.
Obviously theology has no satisfactory answer here.
[Hint: My understanding of God does not always correspond
to the official theology.]
My hypothesis on God's justification:
As Adams and Eves we are also responsible for the
"natural evils".
How so?
If you want to solve the theodicy problem, I think
you need another than our usual concept of time and space.
[Similar Ludwig Wittgenstein: "The solution of the
riddle of life in space and time lies outside space and time."
(Tractatus logico-philosophicus). The quotations from B. Russel,
A. Whitehead and K. Goedel mentioned in the section `First-rate
solutions´ can also be interpreted in this way.]
If there is God, then He is above the laws
of space and time. Didn't Jesus also have different conceptions of
space and time than the usual when he said: "I was before
Abraham" or he was "with God from the beginning"? And if that is so, then we must look for the
solution of the theodicy problem outside of the known laws of
nature. But if we seek the solution of the theodicy problem only
within our human limits, such as our mind, then we find no answer
to the great final questions. Only if we cross these boundaries we can find credible, though not provable,
answers. Also
physics Physics has expanded our horizons with the
theory of relativity and quantum entanglement and has questioned
many of our previous findings.
[(See e.g., in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement.) , https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantenverschr%C3%A4nkung or
https://www.scinexx.de/news/technik/quantenverschraenkung-ueber-150-millionen-kilometer/]
Therefore my attempt to explain is based on other
than our previous ideas of space, time and our existence, even if
this contradicts our feeling of a linear course of time and a
clear spatial allocation.
If we disregard our previous conceptions, like the
physicists, then the idea is to interpret us and our existence in
a meta-temporal and meta-spatial manner and not to see Adam
(Hebrew "human") and Eve like two concrete individuals in the
former paradise, but like prototypes or 'archetypes' that
represent every single person who, like these, has separated from
God and thus has lost his paradisiacal original state / has left
paradise and now lives in a world that also contains “natural
evils”. When and where we have
separated from God, I can quite imagine with this
aforementioned other space-time concepts (independent of time in a
parallel kingdom of God / “paradise”? “Parallel universe”?).
[1. This assumption is somewhat similar to the
Many-Worlds-Theory of Everett (A. Loichinger) and the ideas of
reincarnation in Buddhism and Hinduism - with the crucial
difference, however, that Christianity does not know of
overwhelming, seemingly endless reincarnations.
2. Christians have certain ideas about what comes after death. But
why not what was before the birth?]
So
I start from the assumption of a pre- or parallel existence of
every human being beyond our world. That means that we have
another existence beside our earthly existence, which is called
Adam and Eve in the Bible, with which we are connected, like a
quantum entanglement.
Quantum entanglement proves that something that belongs together can also form a unit despite the greatest distances and time differences. Aren't our thoughts also free of space and time? Can't two people be connected in thought? Don't we think too materialistically, so that another broader view remains closed to us?
In any case, I can identify with Adam very well. And who not? Don't we keep eating from the apple of paradise with every sin?
And
God gives us freedom of choice choice between good and bad
- as I said, as sign of the love relationship with us.
If we identify with 'Adam' and 'Eve' in this way, then we and not
God are responsible for both: for the moral and the "natural
evils" - and God would be justified. God is justified - according
to this concept- because his omnipotence and unlimited love do not
contradict our sufferings. In my opinion, only an interpretation
like this, which starts from a meta-temporal and meta-spatial
perspective, can explain the contradictions between the
omnipotence and love of God on the one hand and the "natural
evils" on the other, what can also serve as "evidence" for such a
hypothesis.
One can also say “upside down”: God's justification makes it also
credible that something like many or parallel worlds / existences
exist.
If, according to this hypothesis, we humans are guilty of
all evils and Jesus forgives all guilt, the question remains why
we still suffer even though our guilt has been forgiven.
The guilt is gone - the consequences are not. Where is the grace
of the Lord in that?
I think it is right that God
forgives guilt. However, it is also right that people notice the
negative consequences. Doesn't that apply to every love
relationship? Even lovers would make a mistake if they do not
forgive guilt, but they would also make a mistake if they convey
that guilt does not matter. Therefore, isn't it right to become
aware of our lying or deceiving? If our negative actions had
no noticeable consequences, what would be the case? We'd probably
get lost in chaos.
God allows freedom of choice. He does not force and incapacitate -
like every lover - even if this is connected with suffering. Even
if God tolerates suffering, He does not leave us alone. I believe
that God still goes to the extreme limit of love up today to
minimize our suffering - just as He did in Jesus. Is this proof of
His unconditional love not enough for us? Even
if it is different from what I suspect, it is not because of God's
lack of goodness, but because of our small faith or
shortsightedness or lack of imagination that some causes of
suffering remain hidden from us. Does God need to justify Himself
to us, even though it is we who need justification?
Preliminary
remarks:
• In general to causes, see on `Causes and Results´ in Metapsychology.
• Illness should not solely be interpreted as the consequence
of misbehavior!
• Illness should not be viewed as the absolute evil that has
to be destroyed.
• Every person can become ill (mentally and physically).
The causes of illness are similar to the causes of
misfortunes: Every misfortune can hit any person, although
with different probabilities. The person concerned can become
sick without or by his/her own fault. [208]
I repeat briefly the most important:
1. Illness and health are of relative importance.
2. Illness is not absolutely negative and health is not
absolutely positive. As Relatives, illness and health have
both, positive and negative sides.
3. The most frequent primary (!) causes of illness are ´Inversions´. [210] Inversion means that by
reversal of Absolute, Relative and Nothing, basic reversals of
meaning take place. Such reversals of meaning arise, above
all, by attitudes that make a claim to absoluteness that
excludes other attitudes. `Isms´ or ideologies are typical
examples of this.
Of course, mental disorders may also be caused secondarily by
physical disorders (“second-rate causes”).
4. Causes of mental disorders are rarely to be found only
within the affected person him-/herself but in all of the
spheres that affect him. A similar statement can be found in
various references about the discussion of the genesis of many
mental disorders: “The genesis is assumed to be
multifactorial, with genetic, neurobiological and psychosocial
factors constituting the relevant pathogenic causes.”
The share of the single factors is different in every case. I
tend to focus on the spiritual spheres because I am also
convinced that there are the most options of efficient
therapies. That is usually not the case if one only tries to
influence the biological-material sphere (brain, genes)
usually by using psychotropic drugs.[211]
The Relative that invades into the
self-area will turn into a strange Self,
a new, strange, divided center resp. the basis on which a new
strange I/ Ego (dashed lines) will
be established.
Then the Ego
displaces the actual I.
The initial situation is often in such a way that parents or
the environment of the mentally ill people are also caught in
inversions. Therefore, they lack freedom/independence
themselves and are overwhelmed with unsolved problems. Their
worldview is usually narrowed, frightening and fixated. Some
seem to be strong on the outside and some might actually be
strong, but they overexert themselves. What they are usually
missing is a free, genuine, absolute Self, which is capable of
tolerating and protecting a weak, frightened, faulty I.
Instead one has to be strong, brave and good - and the weak I
will be hidden due to fear and shame. To the parents, another
world than the own, a bigger and more independent world is
full of danger because they are not able to control it. And, to be honest, which
parents are not concerned?
The psychical problems within a family can be compared to
debts: Families that struggle with psychical disorders usually
have psychical “debts”. Many times, one or more member(s) of
the family will pay those debts by sacrificing their health,
whereas others remain healthy. Later on, we will see why
it is that way. One thing is for certain: It is mainly a
matter of fortune or misfortune if a person becomes ill or
not.
As already said: The child needs a stable basis, an
invulnerable core, a real, good Absolute and not something
Relative but an Absolute that is not based on fulfilling
requirements but one that is unconditional and that loves,
protects and guides the child to allow normal psychical
development. Such Absolute would be the unconditional love of
both parents. If they cannot give love enough - usually
because they have not experienced such love themselves - the
development of the child is endangered. Has the child bad
luck, its Self is threatened to go down. Certain living
conditions, personal misfortunes, traumatizations also play a
big part since they may cause specific sA to occur. Usually,
the child is too young to understand what is happening to it
and is not able to fight against it. There is an unconscious
mechanism that takes place in this dangerous situation. A
mechanism that is of high cost. The child identifies itself
with the Self of its parent(s). It adapts excessively.
That leads us to the second act:
To save his Self,
the child identifies with the parents. Above all, the child
takes over what is of absolute importance for the parents.
Collective Absolutes emerge.[212]
The graphic shows how the child is shaped by misabsolutized positives or negatives (here by their parents). The created imprinting is just like a barcode with black (negative), white (positive) or black-white (ambivalent) sS (or defects that are not illustrated here). There is an analogy with genetic embossing.
The child mainly adapts to what the parents determine as good* and bad*[213] - whatever has to be fulfilled and achieved (the good*, the ideal*) and whatever has to be avoided (the bad*, the taboo*). Since the
parents have absolutized Relatives, the parents and the child
have the feeling it is not just about something Relative but
about all, about the Absolute, about being or not being. In
normal development, the child also adapts to the parents and
identifies itself with their worldview. However, it has the
freedom to let go of whatever does not match its own identity,
wishes or perception without being punished. Yes, children and
teenagers have to question their parents absolutely and in a
radical way to find themselves. Then they can choose whatever
matches their own identity and perception or not.[214] They
retain existential freedom of choice.
However, wherever the Self of the parents does not match the
own Self, wherever the child experiences it as strange-I or
strange Self, there will be a central, existential and
uncontrollable conflict within the child. The strength of this
conflict becomes apparent if we consider the fact that it is
about something that is experienced as absolute by the
concerned. However, the false Absolute is strange to the Self.
Those strange parts are unsolved complexes (like cuckoo eggs)
within the Self and suppress the own parts. At those parts,
the I is not master in its own house. It has to share its
innermost, its own, with something strange, perhaps even
hostile. That is the price the child has to pay unknowingly to
save itself.
On the other hand, the child also has some advantages from
taking over the parent´s Absolutes/ Selves: The child does not
want to conflict with the parents/ its environment. It can
rely on these internalized parts and values and finds some
strength and identity, even if they are relative and strange.
The child is caught in a golden cage. It basically
(unknowingly) agrees with the parents to stay within that cage
to be protected. With that, some sort of emergency-solution is
being created for the child: Rather having a strange Self than
to have no self-perception. Here is already programmed what we
also find later in mental illnesses: The division and
depression of the Self by strange self-parts.[215]
Thus kids will be denied of their first-rate Absolute resp.
Self. They may be misused as an expedient, as the parent's or
environment's object.
T. Moser explained: “Many mothers need obedient children, to
allow their own inner chaos to be organized. Or they need the
children to have an echo in their empty lives. Or they need
them to heal their own self-contempt by planning the child's
future.
The emotional life of the kid tips over (dies) like an
overfertilized lake, that cannot regenerate itself anymore.
The person that has to be the pride of their parents never
knows if he/she is really loved: there are always requirements
or even blackmailing. What emerges was called `false Self´ by
Winnicott. That false Self makes the unconscious expectations
of the parents to its own matter. The more important the child
is as a crutch for the parents, the greater the fear becomes,
when later, in a relationship or in a therapy, it finds
confronted with the longed-for and at the same time terrifying
possibility that one asks: Who are you really? Whoever
happened to be the parent´s pride, due to expected success or
presentable dressage, has to constantly achieve more and
trying to adapt in order to avoid panic and depression if the
outer appreciation fails.” [216]
Karen Horney described it similarly. "A child suffers from
primal fear ... when it has parents whose own neurotic
conflicts prevent it from offering the child the basic
acceptance necessary for the development of its autonomous
Self. Throughout the early years of childhood, in which the
child views its parents as almighty, the parental disapproval
or rejection may only lead the child to conclude that
something is horribly wrong with it. To get rid of the basic
fear and to receive the essential acceptance and the love from
its parents, the child realizes that it has to become
different; it channelizes its energies away from the
realization of its own Self, away from its personal potential
and develops a construct of an idealized self-image - a
possibility of how it has to become to survive and to avoid
the primal fear.”[217]
Kids usually
do not have a chance to fight against the negative effects
of the strange Absolutes/Its.
On the contrary, they unconsciously confirm these attitudes,
especially since these are often not false but “only”
exaggerated and one-sided. In this respect, the child often
believes that the parent's behavior is correct and its own
behavior is wrong so that it suppresses its own negative
feelings towards the parents and believes that it has to be
punished. With that, the child is drawn into some sort of
vicious circle, in which the occurrence of symptoms is a
typical “solution”.
The situation becomes even worse if the child feels
responsible for its parent's problems. That is almost always
the case. Even if the child is not able to understand and name
the parent's problems, it still has an idea of what it is
about and tries to help them by sacrificing its Self. The
child starts to act like a parent of its own parents and is
absolutely overtaxed with that role, even if it is only
unconsciously (`parentification´). In worst-case scenarios,
the affected children are mentally (maybe also physically)
like senile childlike-beings. They are blocked in their free
development, and they are additionally confronted with
problems that cannot be solved even by the grown parents. [218]
The worst thing that could happen is that the child
experiences that it has to give up its own Self to receive
appreciation and love. The child will despise or even hate
itself and love the parents too much, although it
unconsciously hates the parents too. However, it realizes that
the parents are also caught in the game and it will try to
love them still much more. It´s an endless circle, and nobody
is there who knows how to end it.
The graphic illustrates how the parental ideals*, taboos* and their emptinesses overload and dominate the child´s actual Self. However, they also stabilize the child, since the child's Self does not have enough stability on its own.
As I said, there are also over-adaptations in the so-called normal development, which are not necessarily required by the parents. Likewise, in normal development, there are always rebellions and resistance to the parents, which are very important for the self-discovery of the child, and are best taken serenely by their parents.[219]
There will
be no disruption if the child experiences a basic love from
its parents and thus is able to relativize the
sA-requirements. The child will not only be able to buffer the
sA through this love but will be able to deal with them from a
secure position. The child will learn at an early age, not to
absolutize pleasure and displeasure and to be so much better
prepared for later life. But “A child`s independence is too
big a risk for the shaky balance of some parents.” [J.
Greenberg, p 27]. The more the parents depend on
something, the greater the risk for them.
Then there will be a strong polarization of the differences
and a fight against each other, an either that or that, a pro
or contra, a black or white way of thinking, a win or lose
behavior. The child then bites itself into the parents and
these into the child. In addition, as I said, parents often
transfer their own unsolved problems to the child. One parent
may form coalitions with the child against the other parent,
other family members may be involved, and so on.
Processes take place which become even more difficult and
inscrutable because they are hardly or not conscious of the
person concerned.[220]
However it may have been, the child´s Self usually remains
suppressed and enmity with the parents does not lead to real
independence. The dependence of the child continues. That
means that it leads to the same situation if the child makes
whatever the parents want it to do, or if the child makes the
complete opposite of what the parents want. The parents remain
determining in both cases. However, the phase of rebellion
represents a very important step in the right direction that
sometimes takes place after many years (or never). Commonly,
over-adaptation and defiance alternate with each other - a
basic pattern that can be found again in future relationships
of the affected people, unless they came to a deeper solution.
Often, there will be also over-matched and opposite (pro and
contra) parts of the strange Self at the same time.[221]
It is usually a matter of time until the strength of the child
is not strong enough anymore to pay the constant tribute,
although that may take multiple years. Whenever that point is
reached, there will be a crisis that is explained in the next
chapter.
„Each
torpid turn of the world has such disinherited children,
to whom no longer what´s been, and not yet what´s coming
belongs.”
R.M. Rilke (Duino
Elegies, VII,63-4)
This
graphic illustrates the different phases of dynamics between the
person (P) and dominating It/sA.
Phase 1 on the far left shows how the person is "positively"
interacting with the It/sA even though the person is already
dominated by them: P fulfills the requirements of It/sA and receives
an extremely strong positive feedback (such as recognition).
Phase 2 (illustrated in the middle) shows: It is getting worse
whenever the demands of It/sA become too high and/or the person
becomes too weak to fulfill the requirements - such as an imbalance
of emotional distress and resilience. The affected person is now
being punished by the It/sA.
Phase 3, on the right, is intended to indicate the dual role of the
disease. It protects P against excessive demands. On the other hand,
the affected person remains ill and allows the continuing existence
of the It/sA.
The system
decompensates whenever the requirements of It/sA are
higher than the compensation forces of the I. More exact:
whenever the requirements cannot be fulfilled anymore, or
whenever threats cannot be fended off anymore - i.e. in the
moment when the power of defense and coping are not strong
enough anymore. But also, if the person does not want to
fulfill the requirements anymore - and therefore causes a
positive crisis! In this situation, the affected person is
back in the old position of his/her childhood: He/she feels
existentially threatened, it is about being or not being, Self
or No-self. The old emergency-solution does not work any
longer - especially if the parents (or environments) are
themselves in a crisis because they are confronted with
similar conflicts that seem to be indissoluble.
This dilemma can also be described as follows: On the one side
we are in desperate need of love; But love also became very
dangerous, almost deadly for us because parental love was
connected to prerequisites or even exploitation. Therefore,
many people seek love while they also fear and avoid it. With
that, the person is stuck within a dilemma because he/she
received a fearful, destroying love. It can be compared to a
barefooted person that flees from the ice by running over hot
coals and back to the ice again instead of trying to put on
his/her own shoes.
All this leads to reenactments (inward and/ or in new
relationships) resp. to a compulsion to repeat until the
affected person finds a solution. It is as if the person has
to find out if he/she is loved for him/herself or not, no
matter what. The situation appears hopeless - but the person
is adult now. Maybe he/she can find a deeper solution now.
What solutions are there?
We will find out in the chapters of therapy.
Psychoses can be differentiated into three
different groups: organic psychoses, psychoses of the
schizophrenic forms and affective psychoses. This publication
is mostly about affective and schizophrenic psychoses.
Affective psychoses
are separated into psychotic depressions and manias
(manic-depressive illnesses).
Schizophrenic
psychoses (schizophrenia) will be discussed in more detail
later on.
Schizo-affective
psychoses show symptoms of both groups.
These classifications are arbitrary from a certain point on -
on the other hand, they reflect certain basic patterns that
play a role in the therapy. But: “At the end of the day, every
psychosis is different and has to be seen in its individual
peculiarity, the social connection and with all its different
subjective meanings. Every schematic view leads to
standardized treatment. That kind of treatment is not
reasonable for psychoses. People that have experience with
psychoses are very sensitive and will react in an offended way
if they are not seen as an individual person and not treated
with the necessary respect.” [223]
A psychosis is always an expression of a severe existential
crisis, which may happen to every person. Usually, a large
number of different and various factors have to come together
to cause a psychosis.
(To causes in general
see on `Causes and Results´ and further on `Causes
of mental disorders´).
I believe that solving the "mystery of the causes of
psychoses" is no more difficult than solving existential
crises in general. I am convinced that every (psychogenic)
psychosis is curable.
I summarize my hypotheses: Psychoses are usually the
expression of an inner conflict of the person between opposing
absolutenesses with a loss of actual Absolute. Such as it is
with all the other psychogenic illnesses, there are two main
conditions first: The absolutization of the Relative and the
loss of the actual Absolute with the result of emerging of
strange Selves and self-sacrifice to maintain these strange
Selves. The person pays with his own health and the loss of
actual Self to solve the conflict between the Self and the
strange Selves.
To make it easier to understand the emergence of psychoses I
want to remind you of the following:
The forces of the absolutized Relative and the oppression of
the actual Absolute change the I especially in the following
ways:
1. Mainly dividing and causing faults.
2. Mainly oppressing and causing deficits.
The mainly splitting forces cause schizophrenic, and the
losses due to oppressive forces cause depressive symptoms.
The arbitrary differentiation does not exist in real life but
is a way of making it more understandable. It represents the
main-symptomatology of those illnesses. There is neither a
solely schizophrenic pathology nor a solely depressive one.
Therefore, the term of schizo-affective psychoses for mixed
forms is plausible.
Basic constellation of psychoses, based on strange Self (sS), that causes splitting (→) and oppression (┴). The person is divided into strange Self, and actual Self at the core and the strange Self is furthermore divided into pro-sS, contra-sS and s0. Each sS is potentially acting dividing and depressing.
As mentioned, also Karl Jaspers already believed that the classification of psychoses in two main classes: manic-depressive and schizophrenic, contains an essential core of truth since this classification has asserted itself in principle, in contrast to previous terms of illnesses.[224]One
assumes that about 45 million people suffering from
schizophrenia. [227]
The World Health Organization (WHO) rates schizophrenia as one
of the most expensive illnesses worldwide.
It is hard to explain what schizophrenia is because the one
schizophrenia does not exist. What is meant with the group of
schizophrenia is also an agreement. There are international
committees of psychiatrists that listed certain symptoms as
signs of schizophrenia. However, it is against human dignity
to refer to people as hebephrenic or psychopath or similar.
Those terms make it seem like the negative symptoms define the
whole personality of the affected person. As Karl Kraus said: "One of the most widespread diseases is the
diagnosis.”
But what is meant by the term 'schizophrenia'? How do the
affected people suffer? What are the symptoms?
There is a great variety of descriptions of schizophrenic
people's experiences. I think the following examples are more
impressive than some psychiatric textbook: Joanne Greenberg's
“I never promised you a rose garden”, and Marguerite
Sechhaye's “Autobiography of a schizophrenic girl”, Jan
Foudraine: "Wer ist aus Holz?" et al. Those accounts describe
the feelings, experiences and thought of schizophrenic people
in a way I could never describe. They talk about how the
affected people lost their footing, stability and confidence,
how they desperately strive not to go down or not to break or
to implode, not to fuse with someone or something, not to be
overwhelmed by foreign, uncanny powers, to feel that not only
the inside but also the reality is odd changed, and thoughts
and reality cannot be separated.
Delusion and hallucination will be discussed later on.
A list of all possible schizophrenic symptoms can
also be found in the Summary
table columns T, U and
V.
Hypotheses:
• The most frequent primary (!) causes of schizophrenia
are inversions. But not every schizophrenic symptom necessarily
results from an inversion.
• Any
Inversion can cause schizophrenic symptoms. Especially all
strange Absolutes (sA) are potentially schizophrenogenic.
[We know it: All kinds of things can drive us
“crazy”.]
• Any second-rate system, such as P², has latent, or
even obvious schizophrenic characteristics (e.g., it
is
more or less divided.)
• Causes of schizophrenic
symptoms are often outside of the affected person.
• It is quite easy to integrate the
existing theories about the causes of schizophrenic psychoses
into the present paper.
Do the
affected, which are involved in such contradictions and
paradoxes, see so wrong about the world? Does somebody see it
more correctly who tells us that the world is fair,
unambiguous, logical, clear and not contradictory? Our
affected families or patients certainly see the world more
realistic when they see them full of opposites. Their
"mistake" is only that they take that not relatively but
absolutely.
For the causes of the schizophrenic
symptoms I also refer to the beginning of the chapter. (→). There
is not the one cause for schizophrenia. The
causes for these symptoms are as varied as the individuals
which were affected by them.[230] Manfred
Bleuler sums up: „Decades of research has not succeeded in
proving just one specific cause of schizophrenic disturbances.
Today we are ready for the thought that there is possible, not
such. Rather it has become clear, how manifold disharmonies
that disrupt personality development form the predisposition
to schizophrenic illness.” [231] As
described in the part 'Metapsychiatry', one can see the
mentioned 'ideologies' as a starting point for inversions.
This leads to reversals of fundamental meanings, which
are solidified by a multitude of "Its". These Its are
generating centers of second-rank realities in the world, in
the person and in the I (WPI).
Each It changes more or less all aspects ('spreading') with
one 'main impact direction' each. Although the main impact
direction of the particular It essentially determines which
kind of symptom group develops, on the other hand, manifold
symptoms can be produced by each one of the Its. Viewing from
the symptom, this means that every symptom can have a variety
of causes. In terms of schizophrenia, this means that
there is not the specific cause for schizophrenia but that
multiple factors must come together for this or that symptom
group to arise. This also corresponds to the clinical
experience and many theories of schizophrenia development (see
later). As I said, in my opinion, a common denominator of
these different causes is that they all invertingly act.
I listed all sorts of schizophrenic forms and schizophrenic
functional and quality disorders in the Summary
table
(see the last 3 columns).
They correspond in many respects to the symptoms stated in the
literature but are listed here systematically according to my
classification.
II have tried to make plausible the common of the
schizophrenia causes in these statements. Probably everything
can make us crazy or split if it is not taken any more
relatively but absolutely, and I have tried to illustrate with
the concept of the strange Self (resp. It) most different of
such absolutized forms with her main results. As said, it
seems that in this model most of the numerous theories of the
origin of schizophrenic reactions have a place. But one should
see them not alternative but in addition. [232]
I believe that only disturbances of the absolute sphere of the
human being (the self) can cause psychoses, because as long as
the causes and the disturbances are only of relative
importance, a mental disorder, or even psychosis, will hardly
be able to manifest itself.
On the other hand, if we look at the enormous integrative
power of the actual Self (resp. +A), which makes people
identical, valuable and free in every situation, this basis is
probably the strongest force against any kind of psychosis,
and we should beware of ideology-based models and therapies,
because they basically do what the patient does with himself -
they create new preconditions for his existence.
Table Example: To the genesis of fusions and splittings
Once,
a snake came into my heart,
it had two heads, a black one and a white one.
And each head was telling the opposite of the other.
Both were speaking the truth, but the center of their word was
a lie.
Here are some notes:
A 'real', actual wholeness/unity cannot be divided. (See motto
by R.D. Laing above). I.e., if the subject (resp. person) is
connected with the +A, which can integrate all objects, also
the negative ones, then no permanent subject-object- or other
splittings can occur.
Schizophrenia is a mental breakdown = "Zusammenbruch". The
German term reflects two typical features: `zusammen´
(`fusioned´) and `Bruch´ (`split´). Inversion causes our souls
to become divisible and fusible.
Splitting affects the whole absolute-sphere of the person as a
result of an experience of absolute opposites.
Within the relative-sphere, I only will speak of differences,
divergences or polarities.
In the following chapter, I will discuss mainly the phenomena
of splitting and fusion.
They shall stand exemplary and representative for other
schizophrenic symptoms.
Spheres of splittings
Inversions may cause splittings within all
aspects. One may differentiate between:
A.: splittings in the dimensions-spheres
B.: splittings in the differentiations-spheres (for example
subject-object-splittings , matter-spirit-splittings or
soul-body-splittings , or splittings of different realities
and people).
To A.
1. The absolute splitting between +A
and ‒A.
2. splittings
between A and It resp. between Self and strange-Self.
[233]
3. splittings within an It into its parts: pro-sA, contra-sA
and s0.
4. splittings within an It-part into one of its three sides
(+/‒/0).
5. splittings between the different sA/sS.
To 1) In my opinion, the split between +A and ‒A is the only
absolute split. But you must believe in the existence of +A
and ‒A.
To 2) In relation to the person, the splittings concern the
Self and the strange-Self(s). The affected person experiences
a contradiction, splittings of the actual Self and the
strange-Selves. That contradiction is not absolute because
Self and strange-Selves coincide in some parts. Yet, that
contradiction will be experienced as absolute. Due to the
strange-Selves, the person will be 'de-individualized' and the
individual (literally: the indivisible) will become divisible!
To 3) The third area of splittings exists within the opposites
inside of the It resp. the strange-Self itself in the
splitting in pro-sS, contra-sS and 0S (or: +sA,‒sA and s0;
Example: ideal*, taboo* and 0*).
The graphic illustrates the splittings between the Self and the It resp.
strange-Self
and in addition, how the It/
sS continues to divide into three parts.
For easier understanding, I recommend taking a
look at the chapter 'The
emergence of the It' again. There, I
describe the structure of It. The It is made of two/three
contrary, yet fixed connected parts, which are the starting
point of splitting- and fusion phenomena of different
illnesses.
To 4) The 4th splitting possibility arises when one of the
three sides of an sS is opposed to another. (This would be the
case, for example, if the advantages and disadvantages of an
absolutized object were the same.)
To 5) The fifth sphere of splitting develops if two or more
strange-Selves are contrary to each other.
Everything, that enters the core of a person and is not the
Self, will decay, break apart and therefore causes a splitting
or fusion of the person. We all live in a world that is more
or less divided (or fusioned) and whoever internalizes these
splittings/ fusions of the world without being able to process
or integrate it, will be divided/ fusioned as well. (O
Splitting and/or fusion phenomena otherwise.)
Here, using examples of splitting- and fusion-phenomena, representative of all other opposing phenomena.
See also `It-parts and opposites in general' and `Possibilities of interactions' in `Metapsychiatry´.
We can find the same in schizophrenia.
More precisely: Similar to the second-rate realities, schizophrenic
people lose due to the It/sA their original unities and
connections: the connection between A and R, between mind and
matter, between person and thing, subject and object, but also
between different persons.
But opposing phenomena can also arise: mergers, one-sidedness, false
connections, etc.
In this case, the diversity of various units is lost, such as those
of different persons, different things, mind and body, subject and
object, etc., or they are reversed. Thus, people often become more
like things, things become more like persons, subjects become
object-like and objects become subjective.
Schizophrenic psychoses often develop in families
that either have strong tendencies of fusion (symbiosis) or they are
very divided or both opposing tendencies can be found side by side.
The index patient either takes the pro-side, the contra-side or will
be torn apart between those two sides. This person usually has no
clear position of his own (no actual Self) and still needs an old
position to guarantee psychic stability. But the more this position
is overtaxing the affected, the more he will be forced towards the
contra-position, or he will alternate between the two positions or
becomes divided. In the meantime, the 0-position can be chosen as a
balance between the opposite positions, but of high costs, too. R. D. Laing: "Therefore, the polarity is
between complete isolation or complete merging of identity ... The
individual oscillates perpetually, between the two extremes, each
equally unfeasible. He comes to live rather like those mechanical
toys which have a positive tropism that impels them towards a
stimulus until they reach a specific point, whereupon a built-in
negative tropism directs them away until the positive tropism takes
over again, this oscillation being repeated ad infinitum."
And Manfred Bleuler pointed out that autism and split are two sides
of one psychological process. [234]
All of these reactions are associated with deficits in the
first-rate reality and personality.
I believe that the extreme introversion in autism or schizophrenia
is an act of protection to guard the personal core from splitting or
decay. Since the affected person has a weaker Self, every additional
pressure threatens to destroy the remaining Self too. The person is
caught in a vicious cycle of splitting- and fusion tendencies and
cannot escape. (`Psychical Bermuda Triangle´). He may find some sort
of balance between the two sides but that balance is of the very
high cost. It will be very hard for the person to forgo that balance
(although which would mean to can lose his symptoms) because as soon
as he wants to get away from one side, the other side will threaten
him. The threat will be experienced as existential. The affected
person believes that he will die if he tries to give up the balance
between the dividing and merging positions. Why? Because the person
identified himself with the underlying sA, even though that sA is
the reason for the splitting and the autistic reactions. To lose the
sA and the symptoms, the person basically has to let the sA "die".
However, since the person identifies himself with the sA, he will
experience the `death´ of the sA like his own death. The person will
not take that risk, especially not as long as he can not find a
stronger Absolute.
strange-I ↔ loss of I
splitting, isolation, `explosion´ ↔ fusion, compression,
`implosion´
chaos ↔ inner constraints, automatism
peculiarity, specifics ↔ no individuality
ecstasy ↔ lack of emotions
hallucinations ↔ inner emptiness, isolation
symbolized, encrypted topics ↔ concrete simplified topics
closing, isolating ↔ opening, exposing
insensitivity, petrification ↔ sensitivity, pain
reification ↔ liquidation
bizarre topics ↔ amorphous topics
emptiness, inner poverty ↔ heaviness
weakness, powerlessness ↔ false potency, feeling of
almightiness
sense of inferiority ↔ megalomania
fixation ↔ instability, dissolution, shifting.
It is not only schizophrenia itself but also single symptoms that can be interpreted as positive sometimes. They may occur as part of a progression as well as a part of regression.[235]
- Social, family, divorces/
symbiotic relationships (see above).
- Other diseases (e.g. dissociative identity disorders,
multiple personality disorders, anorexia/bulimia, dyslexia,
stuttering, from a certain point on for most mental
illnesses).
Parallels to Physics?
We already established, that there are similarities
between the rules/laws of second-rate realities (such as
in P²), and the laws of physics. That also applies to
the impacts of pressure on an object or splitting of an
object. In both cases, there are both fracture points and
compression points (~ fusions). In some cases, the fractures
predominate, in others the compressed. One may even see the
third result between the divided parts: the nothingness.
Perhaps there are parallels of second-rate dynamics to
physical processes such as nuclear fusion or nuclear fission.
The chaos theory describes chaotic conditions which also
represent an analogy for psychotic conditions.
Autopoietic system theories also describe bifurcations
resembling splittings in P².
Everything that I mentioned regarding the opposite-pair
'splittings and fusion ' also applies to 'shifting and fixation'
because splitting always goes along with shifting and fusion with
fixation. The affected person is therefore not only divided and/or
fused but also shifted and/or fixated. We are all not only somewhat
split or 'compressed' but also shifted (crazy).The graphic in chapter "Fear" should illustrate how the fA / Es displace (make
crazy) the person.
The clinically shifted/ crazy person, may have adapted himself to
our craziness and was not able to deal with them. (See also in the bibliography on this
issue the publication by M. Siirala).
As
mentioned above, one may find certain opposite-pairs and their
symptoms throughout all aspects.
Like schizophrenia, paradoxes arise from
contradictions within a system that has no meta-level - ultimately caused by
'inversions'.
[Pictures of schizophrenic artists are
usually without horizon ~ missing transcendence, meta-level. See,
e.g.
Leo Navratil: Schizophrenie und Kunst, dtv, München,
1965.]
One
may also say: Whatever causes paradoxes, may also cause
schizophrenia.
In their characteristics, paradoxes (as well as schizophrenia)
show contradictions/ ambivalence on the one hand and the
indissolubility of those contradictions on the other
hand. In addition: A characteristic of schizophrenia is
its inherent paradoxes, which the person concerned cannot
resolve.
The solution for both consists in the introduction of a
meta-level that can relativize or resolve the contradictions.
By the way: our world is more or less ambivalent, ambiguous or
even contradictory and paradoxical. The paradox is also, that
interpretation and counter-interpretation often appear equally
true.
(See also chapter
`About
the emergence of paradoxes').
After inversion, P² will live on many different
foundations. The affected individual will experience those
foundations as contradicting, ambivalent, incompatible, not
capable of being integrated and therefore unsolvable.
The really relative limits become absolute and will be
experienced as insuperable („fehlender
Überstieg“ - "missing cross over“
Conrad). In itself, the Self (as well as God1)
compensates for all contradictions and opposites, but the sA
does not. While the person (P), who is based on the
actual Self, has no problems cooperating with all the
different areas of life and always remaining himself, now,
strange foundations make P opposite and crazy. The strange
Selves of these people are sometimes like wolves. They are
distrustful and lonely but in a pinch, they will stick
together. They are not friends but fellows at most or
conspired communities. They quickly have common enemies, but
also quickly get into hostility with each other. Or they are
like helpless lambs. They can never rest because they are
constantly being haunted. They have to escape and overcome
different obstacles. Or they have defective or contradicting
views and behavior according to that sS on which they depend
on. Therefore they act in ways that cannot be understood by
others. Or they are forced into further roles by other
strange-Selves.
And is the I once it is itself, an I-self, then it is still
uncertain in view of other positions, "is it really me or
not"?
The schizophrenic patient is lacking the self-evidentness.
The individual does not experience himself nor the world as
self-evident.
(See W. Blankenburg elsewhere.) The person concerned lacks a secure
Self that gives identity and integrates everything negative.
Since P is identified with a number of different objects or
other persons, he is very dependent on them. He can see the
same thing completely reverse or distorted and crazy,
depending on which strange Self dominates him. He is no
longer able to deal objectively with these issues/objects.
He will take it personally.
The centers, the strange Selves, of these persons, are weak
and heteronomous. Their limits are perforated. The graphic
in the chapter 'Vulnerability-stress-theory' shows how the self area, which is in itself
unassailable, becomes vulnerable to the strange Selves. The person
does not give priority to his own Self but the strange parts. Those
strange introjects receive the status of a subject, become
quasi-personal, and the Ego becomes a passive and assailable object.
No wonder that the person concerned delusionally reacts or
hallucinates in this situation. Since the strange has established
itself in a dominant position, the person also feels how these
foreign powers dominate him, how they do something to him, as an
object, pursue him, observe him, or even talk to him. As
inexplicable as these phenomena may seem, at first sight, they
become understandable when we consider the role of the strange-Self
(sS) because the strange-Self was personalized while the I-self was
depersonalized. If, for example, parents or what they
represent are absolutely taken, the child will develop structures
that conform to the absolutized parental parts, which now
(quasi-personal) take on some sort of subject-role. They act as
subjects and will also be experienced as such. Therefore, there are
many affected people that are able to assign voices to specific
people. The sS becomes a quasi-personal foreign body that is also
able to 'speak'. One can also say: a strange Ego speaks of an sS
basis.
There are many more phenomena caused by the mentioned sS resp. It
and are noted in the Summary
table
column T-V. Therefore, I will not list them again at this
point. Of course, the actual occurrences are barely as simple
but I think in principle plausible explicable, and it's amazing why
schizophrenia is still considered as a total mystery.
Regarding the causes of schizophrenic
reactions, I recommend looking at the chapter 'About the causes of mental disorders' and `Mental disorders from the biographic perspective´.
If we read these sections from the point of view of splitting
phenomena, we find that the most frequent and typical genesis of
schizophrenic reactions is the following "story": The most important
reference persons (mostly the parents) of the later ill individual
are sS-determined if they are apparently ill themselves or not.
These strange-Selves of the most important persons add up in their
effects. The child is confronted with different absolutized
positives (+*) and negatives (-*), with things they have to obey and
things they have to avoid. The core of this child will depend on if
it obeys or avoids the specific subjects. The actual Self of the
child, that mainly wants to be free and independent, has to
subordinate itself and will be forced aside. This is the main
splitting. Surely, we all have such splittings within us. They will
have a more negatively effect, the more the actual Self will be
forced aside, the less the child is itself but has to be
strange-self. The parents barely ever deal with such a process
consciously, which does not mean that the parents do not make
conscious mistakes. As already said, they are very often
strange-determined themselves but either they have enough own Self
still not become ill or they can compensate the sS-parts somehow or
live with another emergency solution (that will be discussed later
on).
As long as the child takes over (mainly unconsciously) the
strange-Selves of its parents, existing splittings or other symptoms
will not be as noticeable as at the point where the individual tries
to live more out of its own actual Self-basis. That point can also
be later on in life when the child is all grown up. Then, the
affected will stand in distinct opposition to his outer and inner
strange-ideals* and strange-taboos*. The contradictions will be
experienced now as full of tension or even highly existentially
threatening. That is a very important point: Even if the situation
seems to be easily manageable, the personal experience is very
otherwise because the affected person (P) perceives it as absolute.
P will feel as if it were a matter of life and death. While some
people, who are a little more fortunate find a solution, others do
not. The tensions and splittings threaten P to tear apart. As
mention in the paragraph 'solutions', there are different
possibilities now. In our case, the individual will become ill
(which we refer to as emergency solution B.) That means, that the
person takes a compromise (alternative) as a solution, which
relieves him to a certain point but is also of high cost: the price
is his health.
People with psychotic reactions, or
mental illnesses in general, often want to live deeper, want to
live their own lives. Therefore, it seems important to me not to
regard mental illnesses only as something negative, because even
if the individual tries to do the right thing - for example, to
part with his parents, he can become ill.
Even though we all have latent schizophrenic
phenomena within us (according to my theory), not every person will
become clinically schizophrenic. Why not?
For one, extent and nature of the sS play a big role. Then, whether
they tend to weaken or intensify each other's effects.
I believe, schizophrenic phenomenons will be experienced, above all,
if the person dares to venture into the tension between the actual
Self and the strange-Selves. The sick person experiences the sS
resp. It as 'gilded cages' and wants to escape somehow.
(Mostly unconsciously.) He tries to change his basic life
foundations, his strange Selves because the old ones increasingly
constrict him. He tries to cross the border of the strange-Selves
but the danger is: He falls in between the chairs or will be torn
apart. He could make it simple and just sit on the old sS-chairs.
Then P wouldn´t become schizophrenic but would pay the price of a
second-rate, over-adapted life. It seems like many people decide on
that. But some affected people prefer a divided life that is at
least halfway real and maladjusted compared with a life that is all
the way adapted and inauthentic but then they risk a crisis.
I believe that many clinically healthy people have more inner
splittings or similar phenomena than those who are diagnosed as
schizophrenic because they solve it in an easy and comfortable way
with being adjusted. Even though they prevent their own manifest
disease, they will become some sort of transmitter of the causes of
illness. I do not want to condemn this, but I want to show people
with psychotic reactions, that they might be more courageous (even
if unhappier) than some so-called healthy people. They are often
more honest in a frightening, but also a self-destructive way.
Frightening for us so-called normal people, who barely dare to face
the lies of our lives and the heteronomy. The clinically healthy
people are therefore not automatically less crazy, they only suffer
less.
R.D. Laing said: “Thus I would wish to emphasize that our 'normal',
'adjusted' state is too often the abdication of ecstasy, the
betrayal of our true potentialities, that many of us are only too
successful in acquiring a false self to adapt to false realities.”
[R.D. Laing in `The divided Self´].
On the other hand, psychotic reactions can, of course, also occur in
a regressive way.
While the above-mentioned people tried to jump into life but crashed
halfway, others are running away from a life that seems unbearable.
A psychosis can, therefore, arise both, when moving forwards
(`progressive) or backward (´regressive´) since the future is
unknown and insecure or past and presence seem unbearable. Often the
stalemate situation appears to be the safest. But it is too much to
die and too little to live.
Schizophrenia can be described as life in
conflict between the actual Absolute and the Relative that seems to
be absolute, as live between the Self and strange-Selves or
between different strange-Selves themselves.
It is a suffering from contradictions that is experienced as
unbearable for the person concerned. This fact can only be explained
by the assumption of disturbances in the absolute realm in the
person because there are no relative fragmentations. Those affected
trie to live on two or many bases, two or many Absolutes. They are
chronically desperate and undecided. They live in an existential
dilemma.
Foodnotes: 1. "The desperate is like a wave, which is
driven by the wind back and forth. He is a man with two souls. "
(James 1: 6,8).
2. I have, as I said, placed the symptom of `splittings' in the
center of this article because it gave its name to schizophrenia -
it is, as the Summary table shows, by no means the only and most
typical symptom of schizophrenia.
I think also we tend to overemphasize the differences
between the different mental illnesses, whereas not seeing the
common in depth, like the strange-Selves.
I also do not have a problem to see direct parallels of
schizophrenic psychodynamics and corresponding external situations
such as divorce - only with the difference, that in case of
schizophrenia, the `divorce´ takes place inside and the
schizophrenic person is not able to fully separation from himself,
even if he tries. By the way: I would give a human in divorce and a
human with schizophrenic reactions medication only if they could be
overwhelmed by the respective suffering, but not from the outset as
self-evident "relapse prevention". I also want to point
out, that I do not think that the elimination of schizophrenic
symptoms is the first and most important step of therapy. Above all,
the therapist should accept the patient with all his splittings and
unsolved problems. Symptoms are not the absolute bad, just as health
is not the absolute good. By not giving absolute significance
to schizophrenic symptoms, the therapist does not cause any
additional disturbances that would otherwise occur. But also the
relativization of symptoms is not of absolute importance and does
not guarantee their cure but the chances are much higher.
Finally, the positive sides of the schizophrenic symptoms
should be pointed out once again.
Here, they shall be named only as keywords and hypotheses:
With psychoses, the patients defend their remaining parts of
dignity, freedom, individuality and self-determination, albeit at
the cost of giving up part of themselves. The disease is both
protection and self-abandonment. “You know, the thing that is so
wrong about being mentally ill is the terrible price you have to pay
for survival.”- so it says in 'I never promised you a rose garden'.
Or as a patient of Luc Kaufmann said: “If I woke up I would die!”.
On one side, it will be good if doctors and patients respect this
psychotic defense but on the other hand, the question remains
whether the patient cannot do without this expensive protection.
Therefore, I present the psychotic reactions, like mental illness in
general, to the patient as an `allowed emergency solution'. With
that, the patient has the opportunity to allow that option without
feeling guilty but one should also always questioning the necessity
of that very expensive protection. The same applies to medication
protection. Psychosis is not only emergency protection but also
offers an emergency solution in all other personal aspects: it can
give substitute individuality, substitute dignity, freedom, variety,
order, reality, past, present, and future. It can give substitute
communication, substitute well-being and all other positives of the
second-rate reality. Better an expensive alternative than a total
loss of Self. Thus the disease can become an emergency rescue of the
Self.
Do not all common
concepts of schizophrenia have a certain rightness? At least
in the sense by describing many different possibilities of
causes of schizophrenia. I can integrate most of the theories
into my concept without any problem i.e., with the concept of
inversions with their It/sA, I am trying to find a common
denominator.
The known schizophrenia theories emphasize the following
factors as the cause of schizophrenia:
• High-expressed emotions (HEE) (G.W.
Brown and others).
• Double-bind-theory (Gregory Bateson).
• Entanglement (S. Minuchin).
• 'Delegation' and 'impossible mission' (H. Stierlin).
• 'Paradoxes' (M. Selvini Palazzoli).
• Narcissism and contradictions based on internalized
object-relationship
(Kernberg).
• Ego-weakness, often emphasized by psychoanalysts.
• Disturbed family / interpersonal relationships (H. S. Sullivan,
Th. Lidz et al.).
• Schizophrenogenic mothers (Frieda Fromm-Reichmann).
Similar
Margaret Mahler, D. Winnicott.
• Social isolation, especially emigrants
(Scheflen).
• Vulnerability-stress-model. (See below).
• Psychosis is the result of a collapse of openness in the face of
the event.
(Henri
Maldiney).
• Schizophrenia as the result of the 'loss of the natural
self-evidence' of the person.
(W.
Brandenburg).
• Genetic, neurobiological factors, immune disorders, birth defects
and Infections are in my opinion overestimated as the polluter. It also
remains open whether some are not the result of primary psychogenic
disorders. (→ Neuroscience).
• Drugs and alcohol can induce psychosis.
Each of these theories could easily be assigned to one of the aspects in column A of the Summary table or in Summary of the classification, as I do with the following examples.
In the following paragraph, I will compare these most common theories with the hypotheses of this work: the vulnerability-stress-theory, Kernberg's Object-Relations Theory, the Double-bind theory and the Expressed-Emotion Concept.
“Authors such as Zubin and Spring, Ciompi and
Nuechterlein all used the vulnerability-stress-model to
explain the multifactorial psycho-social-biological
development of schizophrenia. People at risk of schizophrenia
... show a particular vulnerability and sensitivity which -
combined with stress and social or physical strain - can lead
to an outbreak of psychosis.”
[See
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diathese-Stress-Modell
, 2015.]
Typical for any schizophrenia is “a break-in of something
exterior and foreign into one's own experience which means a
deep disorder of one´s personal identity with the blurring of
one's ego boundaries and the abolition of the clear difference
between inner and outer reality”. (Ciompi, p. 272).
With the following two illustrations I try to translate these
views into the terminology of my theory:
Fig. The stress-vulnerability concept applied to my
concepts.
Note: The vulnerable areas are also areas for manipulation and
areas in which over-stimulation can take place because the
external stimuli can freely penetrate into the self-area. In
the Summary
table,
this topic is shown above all in the row of Asp. 23.
All psychiatrists agree that many factors must
come together, that are also rather unspecific by
themselves.
It is probably a mistake to find the one cause,
especially since there are not one but many forms of
schizophrenia, which also differ individually.
Note: The so-called 'demands
and capacities model' (explanation for stuttering) is
very similar to the vulnerability-stress-model.
Manfred Bleuler, who is very close to me in his psychodynamic understanding of the development of schizophrenia, expressed himself in a similar way.
"In my own experience, however, we are closer to a first solution of the riddle than is often acknowledged ... The conditions of the development of schizophrenic mental disorders are, in my opinion, best understood in terms of an unfavorable interaction between contradictory developmental tendencies and contradictory living conditions. The schizophrenic falls ill in a struggle which everyone has to fight, but which the healthy person passes: The struggle to reconcile his often conflicting needs to some extent and to adapt them to the environment; he falls ill in the struggle for a unified ego, for a unified personality despite inner tendencies that are difficult to reconcile and adverse environmental conditions. In this struggle the schizophrenic has crossed a critical threshold. Beyond this threshold, he abandons the struggle to adapt to reality and creates for himself a fantastic world adapted to his conflicting needs." [In the preface to Eugen Bleuler, Lehrbuch der Psychiatrie. p. IX.]Kernberg's theory of the confusion of self- and object-representations and the related lack of distinction between inner and outer worlds can be explained by the above right figure. It is illustrated how absolutized objects of the world penetrate the self-sphere of the person, become strange-Selves thus disturb the differentiation between one's own Self and the strange objects, or the inner and the outer world. Ciompi also describes the blurred borders between self-representatives and object-representatives and the connected problem of schizophrenic people to differentiate between the inner and outer world.
Melanie Klein emphasized the child's relationship to good and bad objects in their development and the difficulties or disruptions in their integration. In the Summary table, this topic is represented particularly in row IV (subject-object relations).
The
double-bind theory is G. Bateson's theory of
schizophrenic disorders, presented as early as 1956.
In the following paragraph, I describe the double-bind
theory using information taken from Wikipedia.
(https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppelbindungstheorie 6/2013, 2017. )
It will be shortened and written in italics, and I compare my
corresponding hypotheses in this regard in square brackets [
].
“The classical double-bind theory describes
the following requirements for a double bind to take
place:
A primarily negative commandment or prohibition that is
essential for survival and incompatible with a second
essential commandment, and a third commandment that
prohibits the victim from attempting metacommunication and
makes it seem impossible for him to leave the conflict.
These conditions are usually internalized and a
self-runner.”
[This theory is largely compatible with my
concept: it emphasizes the absolute character of that
which binds twice, the incompatibility of commandments
with one another, the impossibility of the person
concerned to resolve these contradictions, even if they
could objectively be solved and that it is impossible
for the individual to solve them due to subjective
reasons because they have acquired an absolute meaning
and a relativizing meta-level is missing.]
"The main difference between a [relative] contradictory and
a paradoxical rule of action is that in the case of the
former, one can consciously perceive and choose the
alternatives. Although one loses with the choice of an
option the other option, but one consciously accepts its
loss. "(Which is not the case with the paradoxical rule.)
[Here, the loss of the option to choose in a
paradoxical situation is rightly mentioned because the
individual has no superordinate Absolute which would allow the
choice of option. Instead, the differences are absolute.]
“The double-bind theory considers two
levels (at first): A dominant parent and the dependent
child. A third, superordinate level, such as social norms,
ideals, or goals, to which the dominant sender of the double
bind message feels committed, is not considered at first.
However, such a third superordinate level can be found in
the Stanford-Prison-experiment and in the
Milgram-experiment.”
[The necessity of
considering a third, superordinate meta-level is mentioned
here. That also means considering an absolute sphere in which
the “offenders” are also captured.]
“There is ... a wide field of potential
contradictions that are not really contradicting itself on
the level of logic. The real determinant is ... the
subjective excessive demand in the awareness of the child. A
certain problem may overtax the child but as long as the
child must not solve the problem, the child can look at the
problem with a relaxed interest, and will learn from the
situation.”
[With those
statements, the classic double-bind theory is expanded to all
the problems or contradictions of the individual that seem to
be unsolvable, which coincides with my hypotheses.]
Regarding the pressure to adaptation and the
self-image:
"... in double-bind relationship
patterns, the kind of influence also includes the kind of
self-perception the victim has for itself.”
[Important reference to the disturbance of the victim´s
identity whereby not just the identity but all psychical
aspects are disturbed. And the causes are not only double
binds (or splittings) but all inversions.]
My concept confirms and extends the double-bind theories.
In detail:
• The counterparts of double-binds are double-splitting
and lack of ties. They are the other It-effects (when
the It is a triad);
i.e., there can be two, or three possible effects of the same
It/sA.
• Double bonds/splittings can occur if the solution of an
inversion is forbidden or impossible, as it is of absolute
importance to the persons concerned. Uncovering of fundamental
errors in the system is banned because it would plunge the
system into crisis, and system members therefore believe that
their common Absolutes must remain in all circumstances.
• All inversions can have double-bind, multiple-bind,
-splitting or deficit effects.
• Even one single It/sA may cause double-binds or
double-splittings or deficits.
• All P² can be the cause, as well as the target of those
double-effects because every P² is dominated by It/sA that can
have contradicting effects. But keep in mind: the whole P does
not only consist of P²-parts.
• If people live sA-determined (= P²), they send double-bind
messages.
• Every (absolute) bond is also a discrepancy of outer or
inner necessities and the inner need for freedom.
Note: With terms such as double-bind or double-message, also
paradoxical binds, predicaments, dilemmas, traps and so on can
be described. When S. Freud stated, that these are the results
of “two opposite affective reactions or drive reactions where
one of them is a partial drive” and “the other one tries to
prevent it” and that this is absolutely typical of neurotic
symptoms, then the similar is said - as is also the statement
of H.F. Searles that one cause of the double-bind is, "that
one is in the same relationship with the other on two (or even
more) different levels at the same time, that do not have any
kind of connection with each other. This has the tendency to
force the other person to dissociate his participation from
one or other of these levels (possibly both) because he
finds it inappropriate to refer to a particular level if it
has no relation whatsoever to what is going on at the other
level ...". Searles describes how a very attractive and
provocatively dressed woman made him nearly crazy by a sterile
discussion with him about theology and philosophy.
(http://www.alex-sk.de/D_Searles.html
p 132/ 133).
• Double-binds/splittings may also occur if they originate
from two contradicting sides of one part of an It (e.g., a
front side and a reverse side). But because they are based on
the same part, it falsely seems like they cannot be
contradictory. A second possibility: A part and the opposite
part state the same thing because the reverse side of a part
and the front side of the opposite have the same connotation.
• There are 1000 causes that may lead to bonds or separations
or deficits of two (or many) people, as well as 1000 causes
that may lead to bonds or separations or deficits within one
person. In both cases, many different possible causes, that
may lead to one very specific but individual various result.
Examples:
- Mother and father take an absolute position for
the child. This creates a double bond: The child must
follow both mother and father, although they are
different. But this is also a splitting of the childish
image of the parents and the truth, which states that that
the parents are not of absolute importance.
- Analogous example: Mother is the good, father is the bad
→ bond, splitting and trap for the child.
In the `Summary table´ this topic will be displayed particularly in row a4.
If a first-rate +metaposition is engaged, the subjective or objective contradictions (including all dichotomies and their double-binds/splitting) will be solved or at least modified.
“High expressed emotions (HEE) means, that the family members mention a lot of critiques towards the patient. They show animosity or are characterized by an emotional hyper-commitment. The unfavorable influence of HEE on the relapse rate of schizophrenia, depression, bipolar disorders and eating disorders is scientifically proven. However, there is no recognized theory on the mechanism of action." [236] Even this concept accords with the ideas of my theory, which emphasizes the absolute importance of certain people and their attitudes toward the person affected. That absolute importance has certain consequences in the area of emotion and behavior (esp. aspect 7) and, regarding emotions that are illustrated in cells I7 and N7 of the Summary table (hyper-emotion, mis-emotion and insensibility). I believe that common literature over-interprets hyper-emotion, whereas neglecting mis-emotion and insensibility.
• Holistic concepts seem to be missing.
Questions: How can theories that have no concept of a
whole explain sufficiently schizophrenic phenomena?
How can therapies solve splittings that split off anything
that is not scientific and thus are split themselves, too?
Don't they lack a meta-theory that integrates everything that
is psychical relevant? I.e., a band for the person/system that
encompasses everything and 'holds together'? The integrating
instance has to lie on a meta-personal, or meta-individual
level if the person is no longer able to solve the splitting
by himself, or with the help of other people.
*As Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
said: "For one day I will speak to you about the necessity
or the Absolute, which is the divine knot that connects
things."
`Citadel´, Karl Rauch publishing house,
p. 216, 1956.
The index-patient and his family can be considerably
relieved if the main responsibility for solving the problems
lies in an instance outside of the affected people. Here, we
can also notice a disadvantage of one-sided psychiatry. I
refer to the predominant personal image of psychiatry today,
consisting of many self-representations, that are not
being held together by a superordinate unity so that an
unfavorable initial situation of therapy of schizophrenic
psychoses exists.
• Many concepts solely focus on the elimination of disorders.
In contrast, Eugen Bleuler said, that basic characteristic in
psychoses is, that the healthy parts remain over in
schizophrenia. They are not be gone but only hidden.[237]
• C. Kulenkampff stated: Griesinger's statement from the
second half of the 19th century, that states that mental
illnesses are brain diseases was too dogmatic. His hypothesis
- "schizophrenia is a somatic-based illness" - eventually
became an "unreflected assertion". “The elephant of worldwide
biochemical, anatomical, genetic and natural scientific
research has not yet given birth to a mouse when it comes to
the area of etiology.”[238]
I have the impression that nothing has changed in principle
about this statement to this day, even if more detailed
neuropathological research results are available today.
• Most of the theories of schizophrenia are based on a
positivistic principle which means, they only accept hard
facts. M. Musalek, on the other hand, is right to say: “The
main problem of positivistic research approaches lays in the
circumstance that nature obviously knows nothing about our
principles of classification and order. We are the ones who
create disease categories into which we then order the nature
surrounding us. Nature does not know those forms and
categories. Therefore, on positivism based
schizophrenia-researches ... remained without any success.” [239] R.D. Laing even went so far as to regard
schizophrenia as a projection of some schizophrenic theories.
[240]
Why can be seen,
regarding the above-named theories, inversions with their
effects (sA/It) as the common denominator for the
schizophrenia genesis?
I have stated in the previous
sections in what way the inversions-impacts explain the
vulnerability-stress-model, the double bond theory, the "paradoxes"
(M. Selvini Palazzoli), the pathological narcissism after Kernberg and
the High expressed emotions theory.
Regarding other theories:
- S. Minuchin says, that the entanglements happen because the
affected individuals are not able to find a solution at the
certain (sA dominated) spheres, i.e. they are not able to
engage a solving meta-level.
- “Delegation” and “impossible mission” (H. Stierlin) may be
explained likewise: The affected individuals are not able to
fulfill the sA-demands delegated by other people.
- The common I-weakness can be explained with an Ego that is
overtaxed by the sA.
- The “broken-home-situation”, often described in older
literature, may be found, as well as the opposite form of
fusion/ hyper-proximity.
- The schizophrenogenic mothers (Frieda Fromm-Reichmann) can
also be found in addition to all other schizophrenogenic
factors.
See also chapter `'Psychotherapy of
Schizophrenia' in part
`Psychotherapy'.
Delusion can be explained by the
fact that the person (P) does not judge himself and the world
from a first-rate perspective, i.e. from the actual Self, but
P interprets the world from foreign, distorted, partly
contradictory points of view by the Its/sA. This disturbed way
of thinking and interpreting cause disorders that are
particularly found in aspect 18 of this work. I am assuming,
that other absolutizations are also added which determine the
content of the delusion.
The topics of delusion reflect certain absolutizations: e.g.,
absolutization of one´s own responsibilities and morals
→ everything is my fault → delusional guilt;
Others, depending on the absolutized topic: paranoia,
delusional impairment, persecutory delusion, delusional
jealousy, megalomania, hypochondriac delusion, and so
on.
The connection between ideology and delusion seems obvious:
ideologies believe to possess absolute truths. In other words,
ideologies are more or less delusional and encourage delusion.
One may assign the different delusions to certain aspects of
differentiation of this work.
Instead of a +A, the individuals experience strange Absolutes
in their systems. "Such people live in their own solar systems
..." said F. Nietzsche once. [241]
The causes are by no means only to be found in the person
affected. People with delusions are often the victims of
healthy people with non-clinical delusions whose price the
sufferers pay. Therefore, misidentifications play an important
role in delusion: I identify myself with somebody/something or
I identify somebody/something with me. Exterior topics then
represent the inside of P² and the other way around the
exterior acquires other meanings to the person. Example of delusional jealousy:
A patient who compensates his low self-esteem by representing
his attractive wife like an object towards other men: “Look
what a guy I am that I have such a sexy wife.” But at the same
time, he develops the delusion that his wife might like other
men better and he could then lose his love object* (sA), his
wife. E. Bleuler: “The development of delusion seems to be
less puzzling if one imagines it as a result of a
comprehensible confrontation of an inner and outer
conflict-situation: [e.g.,] an ambitious, young man wants to
achieve great things but he does not accomplish great things.
His self-esteem does not allow his own inability to be the
reason for his misfortune: he protects himself from
inferiority feelings by ascribing blame for his fate to the
evil intrigues of other peoples. Or, a girl, who has no
boyfriend because of her contact difficulties, dreams of
men of much higher rank falling in love with her but she
blames evil people who prevent coming together with those
men.” [243]
Bleuler is only able to imagine the transition from normal to
psychotic by picturing a certain 'point of no return'. That
would be the point, where the confrontation of the own
situation with the reality becomes as painful and shattering,
that one gives up the reality and is caught in a surreal world
of imagination." I would describe that 'point of no return' as
the point where a Relative became a strange Absolute
(resp.It), that is not to integrate.
Table:
Example of the genesis of delusion (extract)
Along with the thoughts about splitting and other schizophrenic phenomena mentioned earlier, this table is meant to illustrate some possibilities of development of delusional thoughts and similar mental disorders due to inversions. Especially absolutizations and negations of different meanings and values will promote the development of delusions. Those are often about degradation or the idealization of people.
Due
to certain It/sA, the affected person views the world as
though looking through a faulty pair of glasses:
black and white, too
clear or unclear, distorted and so on.
Depressive and manic symptoms may be caused by
every inversion that leads to certain strange-Selves.
The following graphs illustrate which sS mainly caused
depressions and which cause manic symptoms: [245]
Main positions of the depressive and the manic:
I postulated: If a person absolutizes something
Relative or negates an actual Absolute, depressive and manic
reactions may be the consequence. Absolutized Relatives become
a strange-Self, which intrude in the actual Self and it pushes
aside. The actual I can no longer live freely with the actual
Self (as I-self) but will be rejected and also pushed aside.
We were talking about the subject-object-splitting and
understood it as a process of the strange-I (Ego) becoming the
subject instead of the actual I. The actual I becomes the
object being degraded and oppressed. That is the suppressing
and depression-causing side. But the strange-Self will also
give something 'positive':
It will give exaggerated 'good' feelings, 'lust' in the sense
or compensatory satisfaction. I cannot repeat enough, that it
is important to not only view the strange-Self as solely
negative but as ambivalent, substitute, or second-rate. The
motto for that could be: It is better to experience
inebriation than to commit suicide.
We discussed those two sides of the strange Self: the pro-sS
(ideal*) and the contra-sS (taboo*).[246] The ideal* gives,
motivates, stimulates and makes the person happy and proud
if it is being fulfilled. On the other side, it will
constantly demand something and therefore it oppressively
acts if it is not being fulfilled enough. And if the
affected person decides to act against the ideal*, it
becomes a tyrant and causes a sense of inferiority and
guilt, a feeling of loss and depression. The person will
keep trying with self-denial to fulfill the ideal. However,
he/she becomes overtaxed and gets symptoms of depression.
[From a sociological point of view impressively
presented by Alain Ehrenberg in `The Weariness of the
Self´, 2016.]
Along with the punishment through the
strange Self, there will be a loss of the positives of the
actual Self, since it is no longer the only base of the
person. That mainly means loss of identity, vitality,
uniqueness, freedom, self-confidence, which are all signs of
depression. Therefore, depression can be viewed as a loss of
the actual Absolute and as oppression through a strange
Absolute (resp. strange Self).
I view mania as an expression of conformity of the person
with an absolutized positive* (ideal*).[247] A
manic person has the feeling that he/she found the +Absolute
or is identical with it. [248] However, it is only a short-time
fulfillment of the ideal that is giving that kind of feeling.
Since the strange Self only gives substitutes, the positive
feeling is not only limited but also less worth quality-wise.
It remains a meager feeling of luck: A short rush, a thrill.
Therefore, a manic person is not happy but more like being
`high´.
Such as the term 'bipolar disorder' describes, mania and
depression are two sides of the same thing - the ambivalence
of the strange Self.
Mania is also protection against depression, such as
depression is protection against mania. Mania is an inverse
co-form of depression and vice-versa. Therefore, the
depressive person has always latent manic parts and the manic
person has always latent depressive parts.
[249]
It is well-known that the illness proceeds in different
phases. Since those phases run autonomously and do not
correlate with the actual situation of the affected person,
they do not appear to be explainable in a psycho-dynamic way
which makes a lot of people think of them as some sort of
metabolic disease. Unfortunately, we do not have enough time
to discuss this problem. But if we look at the hypotheses made
earlier, it becomes very clear why the named phases may
appear. The main reason lays in the characteristics of the
strange Self. In the first part of 'meta-psychiatry' I already
mentioned how the flowing transitions of black and white,
right and wrong, good and bad, positive and negate are being
reduced to their opposites. The same thing happens to the
mental state of a person. Regarding the reversal
of mania in depression and vice versa see paragraph `Reversal
into the opposite´.
Based on the strange-Selves, the person is either too far
within the positive sphere or too far within the negative
sphere, even if he/she is acting no more incorrectly than the
healthy people around him.
Looking at it from the side of the strange-Selves, it appears
thus: Such like dictators, they allow us to experience some
sort of ecstasy whenever we were being good and sacrificed a
large number for them. Somebody could say: Why not. I
sacrifice myself for my own good, for my own ideals. Therefore
I am the beneficiary. That is partly correct, and as mentioned
before, the strange Self is not only the bad. The person is
also doing something good for him-/herself, more exact, for
what he/she thinks is his/her own Self even though it is not.
But if a person sacrifices him/herself for the ideal*, he/she
will receive only a substitute but not the actual reward and
more often than receiving the substitute he/she will
experience frustration, oppression or depression.[250]
Can somebody become depressive without having a strange Self?
Yes, in the way you may also become depressive due to
progressive causes. No, if talking about a so-called
'neurotic' or 'endogenous' depression.
In the following chapter, I will only briefly discuss some mental disorders.
A short summary of the known facts:
“Psychoanalysts believe that obsessive-compulsive disorders
(OCD) are being developed when children start to fear their
own Id-impulses and use defense-mechanisms to reduce the
resulting fear. ... The Id-impulses usually appear as
obsessive thoughts whereupon the defense-mechanisms appear as
contra-thoughts or obsessive behavior. ... It is probable that
a combination of genetic tendency, disorder of the cerebral
metabolism and psychical causes (such as stress) is the
reason for an outbreak of obsessive-compulsive disorders. An
isolated, singular cause is still unknown.” [251]
U.H. Peters states: “The symptoms illustrate compromises
between drives, their restrictions, the demanded expiation of
the super-ego and masked substitute-satisfaction, between
which the ego cannot decide (ambivalence)." [252]
I believe that the causes are based on the unsolved conflicts
between the actual Self and some specific strange Selves and
the conflicts within those strange Selves. The basic idea
would look as followed: The actual Self strives to be free, to
be unconditionally loved and always maintain to be itself.
(Being allowed to have certain sexual fantasies, allowed to be
aggressive and bad and so on). However, strange Selves limit
that freedom of being unconditioned and only give
substitute-love and substitute-freedom under certain
preconditions (fulfillment of +sA-requirements and avoidance
of ‒sA-requirements). If those requirements are not being
fulfilled, the strange Selves threaten with sanctions, which
cause fear within the affected person. To reduce those fears,
the affected person develops an obsession to fulfill those
requirements though that usually leads to short liberation
only.
Psychoanalysts discovered the compromise-character of those
mechanisms a long time ago. The affected person tries to
develop a compromise between the Self and the strange Selves -
a compromise between his/her actual needs and tempting
promises or threats of the strange-Selves. However, he/she
does not risk, or is not able to relativize the strange-Selves
because he/she identified him/herself with it and views them
as his/her own Self.
One may find a better understanding of these internal
processes when compared to similar external circumstances,
such as comparing the strange Self with a dictator who, like
with carrot and stick lures us on the one hand with false
promises but on the other hand it scares us and compels
us to behave in a certain way (compulsion) if we do not obey
and do not have the courage to free ourselves from him. This
view does not exclude neurobiological or genetic factors, even
if I would not focus on them as long as there are credible
psycho-dynamic hypotheses that allow for causal therapy.
I want to give a specific example for the different views
and approaches. The case example I would like to
illustrate and discuss is out of the publication
“Zwangsstörungen im Kindes-und Jugendalter”
(obsessive-compulsive disorders in childhood and adolescence).
[254]
That article is about an obsessive-compulsive disorder of a
10-year old girl, which appeared after her grandfather had
passed away.
The authors describe the disease progression based on
scientific criteria along the guidelines. They named possible
causes and certain treatments that “showed a significant
improvement but no complete remission of the symptoms”.
Although a direct connection between the grandfather's death
and the onset of the obsessive-compulsive disorder of the
child was evident, the significance of the grandfather's death
for the girl was surprisingly not discussed! My guess is that
because of the guidelines, dealing with such "final"
metaphysical issues did not fit into the concept. But what, if
the girl was confronted with unsolved metaphysical questions
due to the grandfather's death, which were relevant for the
development of her illness? Surely, it would be absurd to seek
metaphysical problems for each kind of symptomatic. However,
if there are signs of relevance such as there are in the
described case, we should not ignore them.[255]
(Note: When I sent a discussion commentary to the authors of
the publishing magazine with my thoughts, I received the
typical answer that only scientific discussions would be
published.)
I suppose that psychiatrists who do not feel responsible for
such questions of belief, would allow the choice to patients
to seek help from a pastor. However, that does not help,
because:
• there are barely any people who seek help from pastors when
it comes to mental illness and
• the person would be sent away from the pastor as soon as he
reckons with 'pathological problems'.
[256]
The dilemma: In such situations, the mentally ill person(s)
are left alone with their problems if pastors reject work with
mental illnesses and psychiatrists solely work scientifically.
What would be an option to solve this problem? We should
probably show more courage to open closed theoretical and
practical systems (scientific or theological) and risk more
multidisciplinarity.
P is usually too identified with the +*,
which he/she sacrifices him/herself for. In other words, P
burns for something +* and then burns out. P is full of
experiencing a high at first and eventually exploiting his/her
Self.
At the same time, P needs too much energy to fend off what he
experiences as absolutely negative (‒*).
Example:
Yes, I know from where I came!
Ever hungry like a flame,
I consume myself and glow.
Light grows all that I conceive,
Ashes everything I leave:
Flame I am assuredly. F. Nietzsche, Ecce Homo.
Every It/sA may cause pain: a +sA if it is
being lost, a ‒sA or ‒0 if it appears or may appear. It mainly
affects the sA that are effective in aspects 7 and 23. When it
comes to sA in aspect 23 it is especially about traumata and
injuries that affect the absolute-area of a person and/or
absolutizations that avert the development of effective
protection.
S. Freud already ascertained that nothing hurts as much as the
loss of a love-object ( sA).
[+A however, can never be lost - only the belief in it.]
Situations of pain may also occur with
positive processes (labor pain, pain when going through a
reasonable separation). However, those are usually limited in
time, do not become chronic and have positive results. (`Your pain today
is your freedom of tomorrow '.)
Post-traumatic stress disorders (PTSD) occur:
• Objectively through confrontation with death, through
serious injuries, through sexual abuse, rape, violent attacks,
kidnapping, terror, war, torture, imprisonment, catastrophes,
accidents, or diagnosis of a life-threatening disease. It can
be experienced personally or through another person.
• Subjectively through intensive fear, helplessness or shock.
[Cit. DSM-IV, 1996.]
There are highly differentiated concepts of treatment that are
mainly based on behavioral therapeutic fundamentals. I do
believe that an extension of those concepts by including good
spirituality, or religion would be reasonable for the
following two reasons:
1) Statistics show that people who are religious or spiritual
have better chances of recovery. [257]
2) PTSD's have especially to do with relationships between
offenders and victims and the context of problems of death. I
do believe, that those difficulties are of existential
importance (absolute-area) for the affected people and
are therefore best solved based on good beliefs. Why? Such as
the PTSD-therapists suppose, the trauma is best rehabilitated
when there is a secure and trustworthy relationship between
victim and therapist.
The offenders are usually not available. The belief in a fair
or maybe even avenging God1,
however, may relieve the victims more than the options a
therapist has. Another difficulty lies in the resolving of the
victim´s feelings of guilt, vengeance, and aggression that
come along with traumatizations. In the best-case scenario
that would mean giving it away to a higher power such as God1.
More exact: An important problem is that the victim often
starts viewing him-/herself as a potential offender or may
become too and is not able to unite both roles in a
satisfactory way unless he/she gives the problem to a higher
authority. This higher authority (God1)
is able to avenge the sacrifice if the offender does not
repent of his behavior and may show mercy if the victim
him/herself becomes a perpetrator and regrets his actions.
When it comes to the mentioned
'confrontation with death', it is a question of belief if
death is the last or not. Why should a psychotherapist convey a
negative or no faith at all if there are just as many (or
more) reasons for an afterlife? Why should a
psychotherapist not convey a belief/faith, that reflects
a relieving and liberating possibility? [258]
See Complex personal dynamics and relationship disorders elsewhere.
Some brief therapeutic remarks to attention
deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD):
Avoid the black-or-white-thinking regarding medication! Just
like medication for other mental illnesses, they should be
used as 'mental crutches'. They do not heal but they might
save the affected person from a breakdown. If the affected
child of the family is overtaxed and the symptoms are no
longer able to be compensated, taking medication is usually a
reasonable option. However, the dose should be relatively low,
so that the symptoms are not completely covered but remain in
a certain extent. If you give too much of the drugs, you take
away the children the opportunity to develop complex skills
themselves.
(See also G. Hüther, section "Problem antipsychotics").
There are very good behavioral therapies available, although
they are often too focused on total elimination of symptoms.
To me, it seems reasonable to practice symptoms consciously
sometimes, to avoid a fixation on total symptom-elimination
and thus to let the child know that it is unconditionally
loved beyond any symptoms and performances.
A collateral family-therapy is also important, not to seek
fault on the parents' side but to relieve them, to strengthen
them and to loosen unnecessary and overstraining attitudes. In
the sense of 'primary psychotherapy', as described in this
work later, attempts of change are ultimately secondary and
subordinate to the unconditional acceptance of all involved
parties.
A hypothesis regarding Dementia:
It is known that mental trauma can cause brain changes. In my
experience, emotional traumas are a common cause of many
dementias. Older people are increasingly confronted with
existential problems (loss of meaning, serious illnesses,
relatives' deaths, etc.) which are usually not diagnosed as
traumas, however, they are often experienced in the same way.
In addition to these traumas, any demands can be experienced
as negative Absolutes if the person affected can no longer
compensate what (s)he could still handle before his/her
illness but is no longer able to do so, now.
[Similar J. Bauer et al. in http://www.alzheimerforum.de/2/6/2/dkp.html.
1994. New:
Joachim Bauer `Die
Alzheimer-Krankheit als psycho-biologisches
Geschehen´.
In: Walach, H.&Loef, M. (Hrsg.) `Prävention
und
komplementärmedizinisch-therapeutische
Aspekte
der
Demenz´.
2019, Essen: KVC Verlag.]
In the terminology
of this work, the older person is no longer able to reach
his/her +sA, to fend off the ‒sA and to fill inner
emptiness (0). If the person concerned also fights
against forgetting, his chances deteriorate. He is then like the stutterer who
fights stuttering and then stutters even more.
The sA burn out because they can no longer be served by the
person concerned. And with them, his/her spirit goes out.
They burn out like dying stars and remain in the brains only
as dead nerve cells.
Every person has experienced how their thinking and
remembering was blocked in an every-day situation, due to
certain unsolved problems. Why should that temporary
mechanism not become chronic and somatized?
It also needs to be mentioned that such
psychodynamic hypotheses are rarely pursued because they are
not a source of income for the pharmaceutical companies,
whereas billions of dollars are earned only with the
pharmacotherapy of dementia.
I suppose that many diseases that are not primarily organic, such as psychosomatic diseases in general but also many that have multi-factorial causes such as epilepsy, rheumatism, migraine, irritable bowel syndrome, Crohn's disease, asthma, etc., are less genetic than caused by basic pre- or postnatal psychical reasons due to certain It/sA.
Mental illness may also occur due to the process
of trying deep solutions, which is reflected by the term
'progressive illness'.
The opinion that a healthy person acts more correct than an
ill person or that a healthy person may even be a better human
is wrong. In the Christian ambit there are often
misunderstandings when it comes to the connection of 'sin' and
illness, which is mostly based on certain parts of the old
testament. Especially the assumption that an ill person has to
be some sort of sinner is very common. Jesus disagrees with
this error. We cannot automatically assume closeness to God1 or
strong faith just because someone is healthy and well, just as
pain, sorrow or illness does not indicate distance from God1 or
a lack of faith. But on the other way, there are positive
connections between good belief and health as I try to explain
in this book.
Metapsychotherapy means a level above psychotherapy, a level from where psychotherapy can be reflected upon and defined.[259]
But what are the hallmarks of good meta-psychotherapy?
The absolute PerspectiveA good meta-psychotherapy should facilitate a free
choice amongst the diverse psychotherapies, dependent upon the
respective person and problem, and allow - or even promote - new,
alternative methods.
Arguably, every school of psychotherapy will pronounce important
truths; however, without considering meta-therapeutic insights, it
will soon reach its respective limits. Good meta-therapy however,
will yet provide support where concrete psycho-therapeutic measures
fail. The larger perspective of meta-therapy is able to establish
correct connections and relations, and to avoid superficial
therapies that are not sustainable. If the conceptual framework is
kept rather small and limited in scope, then good solutions may be
impeded. This is also true if the solution is solely framed around
that which one can scientifically verify. In such a case, we are
merely installing a closed box, in which we are trapped and cannot
find solutions because the system is not open to a wider
perspective.[272]|Thus, for example, some therapy strategies appear to
resemble illness-extermination-programs promoted by the
pharmaceutical industry.
For me, meta-therapy is the following: Treating people from a higher
point/ from above/ from the highest meta-level with respect for the
dignity of man. According to Spinoza and others,[273] it is a perspective with relation
to the eternal (“sub specie aeternitatis”).
I am convinced that, from this perspective,
decisions are often made differently; moreover, that
decision-making is at its best, wherever the
absolute ”point of reference” chosen is the right
one. First, I would like to term it, in a rather
general sense: +A, or “love”. But a discussion of
different potential points of reference will be
undertaken in the following paragraphs.
In meta-therapy, the most
relevant questions are the following:
What is the strongest definition of a person? What
is our ultimate concern? Which worldview
communicates most of love? What absolute point of
reference/(system of reference)[274] communicates this the best? In other words: What is the
positive Absolute (+A)? Which points of reference make our lives too
difficult or make us ill? Which points of reference lead to either
no solution or merely a second-rate one?
In the following chapters, we will investigate
these questions. Once more, I would like to emphasize that the
answers to these inquiries are credible at best but not provable.[275
Basic problems systematically presented:
• Problems of dimensions:
- The person between the actual +A and ‒A (the absolute, existential
essence of a problem).
- The problems between these actual A and the sA/It.
- The problems between diverse sA/It.
- The problems within diverse sA/It.
Here, one can - following the concept of the `7 synonyms of the
Absolute´ - make further distinctions:
Existential problems relating to: identity (a2); reality (a3);
unity; integrity (a4); unconditionality (a5); priorities (a6); and
autonomy (a7).
• Problems within the fields of differentiation:
The 4 main aspects of differentiation entail the following
fundamental problems:
1. Existential problems relating to being (being or non-being or `contra´-being ).
2. Existential problems relating to life (life or death or `living
contra´, such as `destrudo´).
3. Existential qualitative problems (good /bad, evil/ false; or
positive/ negative/ 0).
4. Existential problems relating to being either a subject or an
object (e.g. offender/ victim; person/ thing).
With regard to the `23 individual aspects´, there are problems
corresponding to the respective subject matter.
The question which is perpetually at the fore relates to whether the
problem has relative or absolute significance for the affected
person (or whether it has the same significance as one of the 7
synonymous conceptual pairs).
In the following, I will reflect general upon the theory of
solutions. Subsequently, I will discuss the various potential
solutions put forward by the most common worldviews, as well as the
consequences which follow from these that are relevant for
psychotherapy.
“Every change begins with the spirit by which it is borne.” Jochen Pohl
HypothesesIn a systematized form, I present the following differentiation:
Hallmarks of first-rate solutions (solutions of
the first order) include the following:
- They are embedded in an absolute
solution/perspective. (→
The
absolute Perspective).
- Freedom: I do not have to solve the problem - just as I do not
have to do necessarily anything else!
- The solution is not achieved at the expense of others.
- First-rate solutions are better and more effective than
second-rate solutions.
Why is this so? It is because they do not require as much effort in
their implementation; they are more harmonious and credible.
Although these solutions, coming from an absolute level, fail to not
automatically generate a total solution but rather generate a basic
one, they will still serve to thwart the development of mental
illnesses that concern the absolute sphere of a person, the Self.
This, in turn, suggests that only in due to faith in a positive
Absolute - which I, personally, call God1,
all earthly problems get mere relative meaning; and furthermore, a
person in their existential (spiritual) foundation can not be
destroyed. Also, the + A not only provides redemption but
simultaneously offers an optimal basis for special, relative
solutions.
Second-rate solutions by strange, positive Absolutes,
however, are, at best, suboptimal, and at worst, predominately
negative; either way, they are less advantageous than the +A.
Relative solutions are often inadequate since they lack a
superordinate meta-level.
Analogically, Bertrand Russel and Alfred Whitehead, in their theory
of types, claim: 'That which affects the entirety of a class (set),
cannot itself be part of this class.' K. Gödel's incompleteness
theorem makes similar assertions: 1. There are always unprovable
statements in nearly contradiction-free systems; 2. Nearly
contradiction-free systems can not prove their own freedom from
contradiction. [279]
In addition, some keywords:
Redemption is more important than solutions. Redeemed one finds the
best solutions. If no solution is possible, the more important and
simpler redemption is still possible: earthly lack of freedom is
compensated by spiritual freedom, earthly contradictions are
dissolved by spiritual redemption, etc. Paul Watzlawick argues
similarly, "He locates many disturbances of everyday human
communication (especially as regards couples) on the relationship
level and sees meta-communication as a solution to dissolve them." [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metakommunikation
, 4/2014.]
Or Socrates: Keep in mind that this earthly life is not the last one
and that it does not matter how much you achieve here, then you will
not be manic in happiness and will not be depressed in misery. [In reference to Socrates: "Always keep in mind that
everything is transient, then you will not be too happy in happy
times and not too sad in sad times."]
For what else reason could people experience liberation
despite existential threat-situations?
[Later, when I juxtapose Causal
and symptomatic Therapies, it will
become clear that this constitutes a somewhat different perspective;
and one which corresponds with the previous. Already at this point,
I would like to say that a symptomatic therapy can clearly also be a
first-rate therapy - in this case however, it would only be a
relative one.
In the German long version I wrote more about 'problem hierarchies
and solution hierarchies'.]
The foundation of second-rate solutions is a strange Absolute (sA).
These second-rate solutions are in no way poor solutions; however, by comparison with first-rate solutions, they are, as their name says, second-rate. The more that the strange Absolute, from which the second-rate solution comes, corresponds with the actual Absolute, the better the secondary solution will be and vice versa. Thus, second-rate solutions range from the suboptimal to nearly unresolved. One might also say that second-rate solutions are neither entirely correct nor entirely wrong. However, in terms of their positive effects, even the best +sA remains a long way behind those of the +A since the above-mentioned existential, fundamental problems persist.One advantage of second-rate solutions is the possibility
of developing hyper-effects, e.g. `ecstasy´, euphoria, high, etc.
A “disadvantage” of first-rate solutions is the lack of development
of those hyper-effects.
If we once more proceed on the assumption of an inversion,
the situation can be described as follows:
Relative entities invade the absolute sphere to become
strange-Absolute and strange Self. As mentioned above, the +Absolute
is the redeeming - however, the Relative as a dependent entity is,
in itself, relatively unsolved. If relative entities now invade the
absolute sphere of a person and substitute the Absolute, at this
central point, an unresolved complex (= `It´) will develop. This
will affect those involved until it is resolved or at least
relativized. If the person depends upon a +Absolute position, from
an actual Self, then the complex is resolved or at least
relativized, and thus defused. In this way, the +Absolute is not a
total solution but certainly a solver and liberator in principle.
Should a relative problem, in this case, remain unresolved, it may
have some negative effects but it does not determine our being. We
stand above it. If a problem remains in the absolute sphere as sA
however, it cannot be conclusively solved without the aid of the
+Absolute. It can only be ostensibly or relative well solved; for
instance, it can be repressed. The effects of these unresolved
complexes depend upon their nature. These are discussed in the
chapter concerning the effects of the strange-Selves/ It. As indicated above, mental illnesses are
considered to be an essential consequence of the effects of these
unresolved problems.
Meta-solution = redemption; this is the state of already being
redeemed, now and forever, in principle (not totally), should one so
desire - not only when one has fulfilled this or that precondition
but quite simply, by allowing oneself to be loved “from above”.
Thereby, the person is relieved from burdens in an optimal way,
since potential demands made upon the individual can no longer take
center stage.
Redemption is more important than solution and through
redemption, solutions are much more likely to occur.
[Example: Solution of the `tragedy commons´ problem.
See unabbreviated version.]
Further Keywords Relating to Solutions
- Life is more important than the functional."What love and spirit give cannot be extorted.”
F. Hölderlin
I believe that we, as human, require both -
scientifically-sound help and the support which comes from faith.
Even if this were to be granted however, the challenges of the
therapeutic situation would yet remain. Even if one assumes that all
those who help only want what is best for their clients, the
question arises as to what precisely is “the best“.
• Is that which is subjectively felt to
be best also that which is objectively the best?
Is the best thing the satisfaction of the patients'
subjective needs? This will be wrong in such cases
as when: the satisfaction of the patient's needs
causes them harm; or when their needs and the
satisfaction of their needs are artificial,
manipulated or ones which are not actual needs, the
satisfaction of which will not benefit the patient
in the long-term. However, the achievement of
satisfaction for actual needs is sometimes connected
with negative emotions or even suffering, and
therefore frequently causes Resistance.
• It is similar to the frequently given advice, that
the affected should be good to themselves. However,
the good in the long-term may be an attempt to meet
the challenges of reasonable conflicts and crises,
even though they are often connected with suffering.
• It is similar to the frequently given advice, that
the affected should be good to themselves. However,
the good in the long-term may be an attempt to meet
the challenges of reasonable conflicts and crises,
even though they are often connected with suffering.
• Also, the therapeutic aim to remedy the symptoms
or even to get health, as described in detail in a
different section, is not unequivocally positive:
The elimination of a symptom, albeit helpful in an
acute situation, might conceal its causes and thus
induce more permanent disorders, which may not find
expression as an illness, and might not even
manifest exclusively in the affected if the
alleviation of symptoms come at the expense of other
people or of other spheres of life. (I am thinking of a 39-year old patient
with Ca, who was told by those who were following
the guidelines that she needed to attend biannual
check-ups for 10 years, since statistically, this
offered the greatest chances for recovery. My
question is this: Even if she lives for a few more
years, will the lady truly benefit from this
treatment, when she has to undergo 20 follow-up
examinations, which, for her, are usually
accompanied by weeks of immense fear?).
• Prolongation of life at any cost? Is a long life
truly the very best thing? In some instances, it can
be terrible.
It seems particularly questionable to force
terminally ill people to live on against their
repeatedly stated will.[283]
• Is reason the very best thing? Is it not tedious, and
even impossible, to remain nothing other than reasonable?
• Serenity? Would it not be better for us were we allowed to, at
times, not be serene, and would these instances not occur time and
time again? Are we not serene to a higher degree if we are allowed
also to not be serene?
• Authenticity? Are we not authentic to a higher degree if we remain
true to ourselves, even when we are not authentic?
• Success? Are we not condemned to be successful if we are not
allowed to be unsuccessful?
• Mindfulness? Is it not to be taken into consideration that
excessive mindfulness can lead to carelessness?
• Objectivity? Is not our objectivity at its highest level when it
encompasses subjectivity?
This list is by no means exhausted and could be continued
indefinitely. In the best-case scenario, these aims are only
suboptimal, since they are all associated with preconditions which
we can only ever fulfill occasionally and partially.
The question remains as to what is the best thing for a person, for
their soul. One might also ask:
What is the Positive Absolute, the +A?
How should the best spirit, the best attitude of mind (in
philosophy, religion etc.) be developed?
In short: What should a positive Absolute (+A) look like? This is a
matter of belief. I personally believe:
First, the +A should be absolutely positive: almighty,
eternal, absolutely good, so that you can entrust yourself to it
completely.
The +A should be affectionate and should not make love dependent on
any preconditions.
The +A should love each person for their own sake, (whilst not
necessarily loving all their actions).
The + A should be free - and not ask a price like ideologies and
some worldviews.
The +A should grant every person implicit dignity,
value and the right to self-determination.
The +A should be, at the same time, both optimistic and realistic.
The +A should elevate people and not dominate them.
The + A should be always self-consistent.
The +A should be accessible to all without any preconditions - this
means that it should not only be accessible to the intelligent, the
strong and the good but also to the simple, the weak and the evil;
perhaps even more so since they are more in need of it.
The +A should allow every person the option to deselect every
Absolute, therefore even the deselection of God himself, and thus,
in this free attitude toward Absolutes, allow the respective person
himself to occupy an absolute position.
The +A should be stronger than the people themselves.
The +A should assist people in their hour of need, without depriving
them of the right to make a decision, nor taking away their
responsibility.
The +A should forgive everything if the relevant person so wishes.
The +A should give people orientation but not direct them.
The +A should provide people with meaning which cannot be lost.
The +A should not be manipulable but sovereign.
The +A should relativize all earthly problems and thereby facilitate
their solution.
The +A should give people hope in every circumstance, thus also
beyond death, without referring to the fulfillment of their hopes
solely to the afterlife.
The +A should be able to empathize with people and comfort them,
just as an ideal mother comforts her child.
The +A should give people, first and foremost, freedom and joy,
relieving the pressures which weigh upon them, without taking every
burden away, in case such an action causes them to weaken.
The +A should make the core of every person, the Self, unassailable
and indestructible, by making this Self independent of anything that
is destructible in itself.
The nature of the +A should be such that anyone, at any time, is
able to find themselves again within the Absolute.
The +A should be good for all people.
The +A is "what holds the world together at the core" (Goethe, Dr.
Faust, chapter 4). the +A should be affectionate and should not make
love dependent on any preconditions.
The +A should love each person for their own sake, (whilst not
necessarily loving all their actions).
The +A should grant every person implicit dignity, value and the
right to self-determination.
The +A should be, at the same time, both optimistic and realistic.
The +A should elevate people and not dominate them.
The + A should be always self-consistent.
The +A should be accessible to all without any preconditions - this
means that it should not only be accessible to the intelligent, the
strong and the good but also to the simple, the weak and the evil;
perhaps even more so since they are more in need of it.
The +A should allow every person the option to deselect every
Absolute, therefore even the deselection of God himself, and thus,
in this free attitude toward Absolutes, allow the respective person
himself to occupy an absolute position .
The +A should be stronger than people themselves.
The +A should assist people in their hour of need, without depriving
them of the right to make a decision, nor taking away their
responsibility.
The +A should forgive everything if the relevant person so wishes.
The +A should give people orientation but not direct them.
The +A should provide people with meaning which cannot be lost.
The +A should not be manipulable but sovereign.
The +A should relativize all earthly problems and thereby facilitate
their solution.
The +A should be able to turn all distress, so that we did not need
anything else.
The +A should give people hope in every circumstance, thus also
beyond death, without referring to the fulfillment of their hopes
solely to the afterlife.
The +A should be able to empathize with people and comfort them,
just as an ideal mother comforts her child.
The +A should give people, first and foremost, freedom and joy,
relieving the pressures which weigh upon them, without taking every
burden away, in case such an action causes them to weaken.
The +A should make the core of every person, the Self, unassailable
and indestructible, by making this Self independent of anything that
is destructible in itself.
The nature of the +A should be such that anyone, at any time, is
able to find themselves again within the Absolute.
The +A should be good for all people.
The +A is "what holds the world together at the core" (Goethe, Dr.
Faust, chapter 4).
(Critical Survey)
The following assessments of the diverse
worldviews have been undertaken, first and foremost, about their
effect on the psyche. These are only statements in note form which
represent my personal opinion and do not claim to present a
complete picture.
As
sources for the subsequent statements, I predominately refer to the
following literature (unless otherwise stated):
Brockhaus Enzyklopädie; Schischkoff: Philosophisches Wörterbuch;
Lexikon der Evangelischen Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen;[287]
Evangelischer Erwachsenen Katechismus; E. Kellerhals:
Der Islam; K. Jaspers: Die großen Philosophen;
Wikipedia; Koran; Bible.[288]
Anthropocentric |
Theocentric |
||
Materialism,
Idealism, Esoterism and most of the other Ideologies In part Buddhism |
Islam in part Judaism |
||
Advantages |
Disadvantages/Risks |
Advantages. |
Disadvantages/Risks |
The person is at the center. |
Lack of spirituality abs. love/ God is missing. Conception of the world is too narrow. |
God is in the center. |
Man becomes too unimportant. Too little right of self-determination |
The person is free and mature. |
A person is considered to be either too big (“superman”) or too small. |
The
individual feels safe. |
Man becomes too
dependent, too small. |
The person has ultimate responsibility. The person strives, struggles and performs. Belief in progress. |
Excessive demands! A person has to perform well / redeem himself. Their deeds decide on their fate. → Pressure to progress, to be successful. |
God has ultimate responsibility. God does what is most important. |
God is too arbitrary, man at his mercy. Man leaves God the existential but he has to believe in God. |
A person is not loved for their own sake. |
Only in one's own religion would
there be salvation and other views would be excluded (exclusivism). |
||
Disadvantages both: Person has to
fulfill certain conditions
|
“Christianity is christocentric and thereby theocentric and
anthropocentric, since Jesus Christ, who is simultaneously
divine and human, is at its center. Thus, anthropocentrism and
theocentrism are not opposites within Christianity; rather, they are
inextricably linked with one another.”[291]|
Criticism of Materialist Science and Psychology in Particular
A pure materialist academic psychology reduces the person to that which can be proven, to that which is, ultimately, matter, and thereby overlooks that which is life in its truest sense. [303]“By that, I know the learned lord you are!
What you don't touch, is lying leagues afar,
What you don't grasp, is wholly lost to you,
What you don't reckon, think you, can't be true,
What you don't weigh, it has no weight, alas!
What you don't mint yourself is counterfeit.“ [302]
This type of psychology not only
despiritualizes, exanimates and objectifies the
person but even robs them of the right to their
implicit dignity, implicit right of
self-determination and freedom. [304]
If
psychology regards all that is human as a mere reaction or product
etc, then it also denies our primary responsibility and the
uniqueness of every individual.
Such scientists will, I believe, have little understanding of the
subjective and even the chaotic traits of mental illnesses. Rather,
they will tend to think in dualistic or digital ways and, as a
result, fail to recognize the shades of meaning in the words uttered
- or if they do, will aim to further digitize these shades of
meaning. As I understand S. Freud's utterance (which I believe to be
correct) that: “The
laws of logic … do not hold for processes in the id,“ it means that, with science, one will struggle to
gain access to the unconscious.
Another weak point of materialist
science is its closed system of thinking. Man is seen in the limits
of input-output and not as one, at least in the Absolute, free.
Thus, "pure science" will not be able to transgress a limitation
that distinguishes the provable and predictable from the unprovable
and unpredictable, which is the unique, too. However, these are the
innermost beliefs and feelings of a person, that distinguish them
from machines and things. One might otherwise think: It is not me,
as a person, who is ill, nor is it my soul which is suffering but
rather, my synapses are affected or my metabolism is suffering - but
thus, only half of the truth is grasped and options for therapy are
lost- the latter coming predominately in the form of psychotropic
drugs, which correct the relevant dysfunction.
In other words: Materialism and science, per se, when applied
exclusively, neither include comfort nor love, and are, by
themselves, weak foundations for psychotherapy. Whether science can
be undertaken in an unbiased, presuppositionless way, is also
questionable. Of course, such issues are already visible when, for
example, building the nuclear bomb. What good will all our
knowledge, all our growth, the best inventions and the greatest
progress do if they are not embedded within a +A (+meta-level);
considered in isolation, these could all be used for evil too.|
Quotations on this Topic
In the following, I will cite some quotations that criticize materialism.
• Erwin Schrödinger: In
the world of science “there are no sensory
qualities ..." Of particular
poignance in Schrödinger's view is “the utter silence of our
entire scientific research regarding our
questions about the meaning and purpose
of the undertakings ... The personal God
cannot be found in an image of the world
which has only become accessible at the
cost of all personal references being
excluded. We know: Whenever God is
experienced, this is a moment which is
just as real as an unmediated sensory
perception or as one's own personality.” [305]
•
Bernd Senf sharply judges: "Science, which originally opposed
ecclesiastical dogmatism, has long since developed into a new system
of belief preached by new scribes and readjusted by the public." (https://de.wikiquote.org/wiki/Bernd_Senf)
Similar to Wolfgang Pauli: "Today we are at a point
where the rationalistic attitude has passed its peak and is
perceived as too narrow."[306]
• ”Science offers access to matter; religion and philosophy, however,
offer access to the mind and spirit.”
“The movers and shakers (of today) not
only bitumize their external environment but also
the souls around them.”[307]
• Richard Lewontin: The self-limitation
of science to empiricism, which is predominant
today, shows that there is “a prior commitment to materialism. It
is not that the methods and institutions of science
somehow compel us to accept a material explanation
of the phenomenal world. On the contrary, it is that we are
forced by our a priori adherence to material causes
to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of
concepts that produce material explanations, no
matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how
mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that
materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a
Divine Foot in the door.“[308]
• Arthur Eddington: “Almost all the great classical philosophers - certainly Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz,
Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, Locke and Berkeley - they all argued that the
ultimate reality, often hidden under the appearances of the material
world or time and space, is mind or spirit.” Concerning the inherent bias of scientificity, he told
a parable of a fisher who would only accept the fish he caught in his
net as being fish. [309]
•
Gerhard Grössing: One is often “confronted with Albert Einstein's statement that the setting of
principles (axioms), which are intended to link up the elements of
experience in a meaningful way, will not be accomplished through a
logical method but only through an 'intuitive (psychological)
connection', whereby he meant that the `free creation of the human
mind´ is an indispensable part of theory construction.”[310]
• Heinzpeter Hempelmann: “The acquisition of scientific knowledge is based upon
the reduction of a comprehensive desire for knowledge to a
simple, limited question … However, the success of the same will be
purchased at the price of relinquishing the quest for knowledge of
the whole.“ [311]
• Noam Chomsky: “It is quite possible ... that we will always learn more
about human life and personality from novels than
from scientific psychology.“[312]
• • The Noncognitivism argued against the absolutization
of knowledge: e.g. F. Bacon (“knowledge is power”), as did
Lenin, S. Freud (“Our God, Logos”), Maturana (“to live is to
know”) and through Cognitivism, (albeit, in my opinion, too
one-sidedly), according to which the sphere of the subjective is not
accessible to any scientific knowledge, since that which is
subjective, the psyche, is beyond the two criteria of truth
accepted by empirical science: logical and mathematical proof and
testing through observation or experiment.[313]
More precisely, one might need to say: The field of
the subjective, such as the psyche, can only be
ascertained through the methods of empirical
science, and only relatively well.
• F. Nietzsche: "`Reason´
is the cause
of
our falsification
of the testimony
of the senses.“[314]
• More recent discussions are presented by Rupert
Sheldrake in his book: 'The Science Delusion”.
In this respect, I would like to briefly touch upon realism and
functionalism, since they have quite important roles to play in
materialist philosophy and respective psychotherapies.
Realism
“The mental action or process of acquiring knowledge or
understanding through thought, experience and the senses, of a
reality which exists independent of consciousness.” [315]
As explained in detail in the section
`Metapsychiatry´, I believe that our world supports
itself as first and second-rate realities; as do we
as people. Only a first-rate reality can be
unambiguous; the second-rate, however, can only
exist as relatively unambiguous realities or even
ambiguous realities. The term `realism´ however,
cannot distinguish between these two spheres of
reality; and misunderstandings ensue if this is
attempted. So
what does the phrase: “I am a realist” mean? Most likely, it means
that “For me, the reality is the defining authority.” The reality,
however, is not unambiguous. Similarly questionable is the statement:
“I am realistic.” Would it not have been realistic for those in the
Third Reich to greet people with `Heil Hitler´? A “realist” will tend
to portray reality either hyper-realistically by ignoring its
fuzziness and contradictions, or by presenting it all too vaguely.
Materialistic psychotherapies generally define the `adaptation to
reality´ as the objective of the therapy.
For a criticism of this, see the chapter:
Psychotherapy.)
Functionalism
Academic Language and Academic Activities
“... I believe that everything, even the best,
becomes one-sided if the opposition is lacking.”
Eugen Bleuler to S.
Freud
• Juxtaposition in key words
Materialism versus idealism
positive: more concrete, `real´, provable and demonstrable,
clearer, more down to earth
negative: too nearsighted, flat, sterile, too-heavy
resp. lack of advantages of idealism.
Idealism versus materialism
positive: more far-sighted, more imaginative, more soulful,
more intuitive
negative: more abstract, world-fugitive, aloof (E.g. → Concrete Examples (Hölderlin, Nietzsche...))
resp. lack of advantages of materialism.
While the human being in the
“flatland of materialism” (Franz Werfel) has no height,
the idealist tends to lose his grip on the ground.
• Materialism ↔ Idealism
They are in opposition. But they are only opponents at first glance,
they are also conditional on each other. In the history of ideas one
often finds how both worldviews alternate.
(See also → Interplay of opposing sA as
ideologies in part II Metaüsychiatry)
Goethe´s Humanism
A. Keyserling characterizes Goethe's humanism as follows: “It is not the work nor the fruit but rather, the process of bringing fruit that is how the entelechy develops ... The development of the personality through objectification and shaping of the original disposition was Goethe's way of life ... The famous novel, Faust, comes to an end with the words `Whoever strives with all his might, that man we can redeem´.”[327]
Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant explains the categorical imperative as an ethical behavior that one must “act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law.”
Present-Day Example
Rudolf Kuhr: “Humanism ... is a means and an end in itself, and urges a person to work upon themselves like no other orientation. Therefore, since this is arduous, most people, thus far, have chosen a religion that promises them salvation through an external agent, as does Christianity ... (It) misleads a person to deal with their inner conflicts outside of their own person. Thus, they ask God for help (God is with us!), rather than solving their own conflicts with the aid of psychology ... The human person is the problem of other human persons and the world - and also the solution.”[332]|
Islam |
Buddhism |
Christianity |
|
Revelation / Holy Scriptures |
Quran is to be taken literally since it came directly from Allah. |
The speeches of Buddha | New Testament, which is not in itself holy but depicts God/ Jesus . |
Declared
by |
Muhammad
|
Buddha |
Jesus |
Salvation through: |
Allah / one's own actions |
One's own actions, self-salvation |
Jesus and one's own request |
Must
/ unconditionalities |
“Five pillars”: declaration of faith (5x /day) prayer, alms-giving, Hajj. |
Every action generates karma, bad karma needs to
be worked off. |
Free
will |
Accession through: | 1x saying the declaration of faith |
Arguably
free |
Voluntary, unconditional. Officially: Through baptism.[339] |
Quit
by: |
Barely possible, at times the threat of death penalty. |
Arguably
free |
Free |
Life
after death |
Very worldly ideas, not very attractive for women. |
Reincarnations (for me, too stressful) Finally Nirvana (for me, too deindividualizing) |
Eternal
and good. |
Advantages |
In principle, humanistic and caring. |
In principle, humanistic and caring. |
Jesus as the one who redeems and provides
orientation. There is no coercion and the guidance is good.
All people have the same and greatest value; God loves all
people. Free “attitude toward Absolute”. Whatever is regretted
can be forgiven. |
Disadvantages |
Allah is too far away, too arbitrary. A person's right actions are too important, this is too demanding. There are some aggressive statements in the Quran. Not enough equality. |
There is no God, little support, a person's right actions are too important; this is too stressful. |
Seemingly, a disadvantage: one's own good works
have only relative significance. |
“The journey is the destination”
The motto: 'The journey is the destination‘, which
plays a special role in Buddhism, could be a motto for many other
worldviews; where personal fulfillment, Individuation
(C. G. Jung) and also, for society: where progress, growth etc.
become the prevailing maxims. In my view, these are programs of
self-redemption which will not grant peace of mind to an individual.
Do not most worldviews come down to a compulsion to reach a certain
goal?
What happens if the person cannot progress further, or even retreats
when he is pushed back, whilst the maxim that he must proceed along
a certain path remains in his heart? Does he not fall into despair?
Now, one could say that even if he retreats, he will remain on the
path. Whilst this is true, he must, at the very least, attempt to
proceed. At times, however, this is not possible, since there are
occasions when one is utterly powerless and cannot see the way
forward. →Chr.
Morgenstern: "He who does not know the
destination cannot have the way".
Perhaps, this problem becomes particularly prominent at an advanced
age, when one finds, as I am now discovering, that one has not grown
any wiser, even though one may have developed intelligence and
gained experience. [Keyword: Here too, whenever the path has been
followed to its conclusion, we encounter the problem of the
so-called `pilgrims' death´.]
Harmony and the equilibrium of the soul as a goal
In Buddhism, and also in Chinese philosophy, these goals play an important role. Of greatest importance here, is the equilibrium and harmony between two forces which are juxtaposed as polar opposites and yet dependent upon one another in the commonly used symbol: Yin-Yang ☯. (For details, see M. Lurker, Wörterbuch der Symbolik).
Perhaps the greatest danger to Christianity is a false church.
In note form, I will present my opinions about some of these points: [358] • Like all people, Christians sometimes also prefer to
dismiss bitter truths or to absolutize or distort a particular
issue. The underlying motives may range from fear to arrogance, and
are very human. The Church itself has always had a tendency to
absolutize overadaptation, morality and even itself. Protestants
overemphasize achievements, free church members overemphasize a
literal understanding of the Bible and conversion and, in general,
Christians tend to devote themselves entirely to the service of
others and disregard self-love. Self-denial is preached instead of
self-love. After decades in the Church, I have only heard one sermon
about the meaning of self-love but several hundred others that we
should do more for our fellow human beings. The ideal Christian - so
the message seems to go - must be pious, diligent, altruistic,
moral, virtuous and somewhat asexual; and he must not, no matter
what the issue, be aggressive or angry. Fortunately, the list of
requirements, as far as I can ascertain, has been reduced; possibly
because people were leaving the Church, sensing that the proclaimed
message was burdensome and no longer liberating.
• Often, this erroneous attitude exists amongst Christians: Many
sins can be forgiven except those which have been deliberately
committed. In other words, evil actions which were committed
unwittingly can be forgiven but not that which was committed in full
consciousness.
• Some believe that every evil person will go to hell, since the
Church has taught this doctrine at times. Jesus however, died for
sinners and the first person to whom he promised entry into heaven
was not a good person but a criminal - the very one who was hanging
on the cross next to Jesus. (A similar message can be found in the
parable of the prodigal son.)
• The Church is either equated with God1 or
else, confused with religion.
• Christianity is equated with humanism and pacifism. Whilst
Christianity is humanistic and peaceable, it does not absolutize
these values. This is why even the “evil” and aggressive parts of
humankind can be incorporated into a person.
• Misunderstandings occur when terms are mentioned such as:
`humility´, `selflessness´, `giving up the self´ (see also the
section concerning the Self).
• Discipleship is regarded as being imperative.
• Faith in God is absolutized. (Even by Luther?) Or else, belief in
God becomes a performance. I believe that the basic will to do good,
already constitutes that which is absolute from humankind's
perspective. (See also: `The absolute attitude´,`Absolute and relative will´)
• The attempt to prove God, since his credibility, by itself,
does not seem sufficient.
• The belief that if we were to only believe and pray enough, all
hopes for good would be fulfilled (health, peace instead of war etc.),
purporting that: “A person who is ill has not enough faith.”
• The opinion: “God has died for us” or “God has sacrificed his son
for us so that we might live.” These are concepts which are prone to
be misunderstood since God has neither committed suicide nor killed
Jesus. I believe that both are still alive.
• The belief that God regulates everything.
• The belief that Jesus can only be understood under certain
conditions, for instance, when one has the right kind of faith, or
when one knows the Old Testament etc.
• Overuse of the term `holy´: Many Christians call things to be holy
such as: the Holy Land, a holy people, holy men and women, holy
father (the Pope), holy Scriptures etc. - but they have been only sanctified
of God, they are not holy in themselves. I believe, only God
is holy.
• The opinion that the Bible is (as is the Quran) to be taken
literally (biblicism). In connection with this is the following
point:
• All Bible verses are considered to be of the same importance: The
Old and New Testament, the gospels and the epistles, etc. I have
little doubt that Paul would “rend his garments“ if one places equal
value on his statements, as on those made by Jesus. The sequence of
credibility is for me the following: the Holy Spirit or Love >
the New Testament (statements made about, and by, Jesus in the
gospels) > experience > reason > Paul and other epistles
> the Old Testament.[359]
The Church does not dare to correct some questionable
Bible verses attributed to Jesus, despite the fact that they clearly
contradict his messages found in other verses, and that they have
always been a bone of contention. In particular, there are four
passages in Matthew's gospel (Mt 8:12; 18:8ff; 22:13; 25:41) and in
Luke's gospel 19:27, which appear to be threats rather than
statements that are in accordance with love.[360]
Similarly, there is no clear distancing from other,
similarly-toned, and much more frequently occurring passages in the
Old Testament.
• Some people consider themselves to be Christians and misuse the
name of Christ. In the name of God, wars are fought, people are
oppressed etc. (Keyword: `Christianism'). Sadly, it is not often
taken into consideration that the wolf in sheep's clothing is a wolf
and not a sheep, and that not everyone who calls himself Christian
is actually a Christian. How often do we hear the argument that it
was the “Christians“ who were responsible for the crusades, the
inquisition etc. However, such “Christians“ cannot claim that they were acting on the
authority of Jesus, who even challenged his listeners to love their
enemies; whilst in some religions, using force against one's enemies
and against `infidels´ is not at all excluded.
• Some claims sole representation, in the sense that experiencing
God and finding the truth can be found only in Christianity; or else
that salvation comes solely through faith in Jesus Christ. By way of
contrast, others believe that all religions have the same value
(theological pluralism).
I have personally found the greatest amount of love within
Christianity (this corresponds, roughly, to the attitude of
`inclusivist theology´).
Brief remarks made by myself are denoted by the use of a cursive font and placed in square brackets: [ ].
Well-Known Critics of Religion
Ludwig Feuerbach (1804 - 1872)
- God is a projection of the human mind. Feuerbach calls for
us to remove the projection and to re-appropriate the energy which
has thereby become available for the humanization of humanity.
[One cannot prove that God or love is a projection.
However, one can also not prove that the opposite is the case. If
in doubt, I prefer to believe in the better.]
- Religion is consolation in the beyond, (escapism). [Comments,
see below.]
Development of the projection of God according to Feuerbach: the
suffering of the individual → the wishes of the individual
(happiness, fulfillment) as well as the instinct of
self-preservation and imagination → Projection: God. __________________________________________________
____________
Karl Marx (1818 - 1883)
- Refers to Feuerbach's theories, religion is a creation by people,
religion is simultaneously an expression of the hardship of people
and a protest against this hardship.
- Religion causes people to be passive and therefore to suffer
misery = "opium for
people"
- This passivity serves to benefit those who possess, as
well as the powerful.
[However, Jesus stirred people up and found harsh
words to use against those who have and the powerful.]
- Marx calls for a better distribution of possession within
society (communism), which would obviate the need for religion and
it would automatically disappear.
[This ideology has already
failed.]
__________________________________________________ ____________
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 -
1900)
- The natural and historical sciences have rendered religion
implausible.
- Christianity calls for a “slave morality”.
[Human being however, was made in the image of God
and Jesus condemned the absolutization of morals, the “law”.]
- The will of humankind should replace God. [See the section
concerning ` absolute attitude'.]
- The “death of God” - is a lengthy process, in which God dies out in the
conscious mind of humankind.
[I do not believe that this will happen.]
- Nietzsche believes that by overcoming
religion man has the chance to become a "Beyond-Man" (“Übermensch"), with new creative abilities.
[In my opinion, this is a utopian belief
in progress; it is also prone to misunderstanding
and open to abuse → NS-ideology.
In part, this criticism of Nietzsche is valid: Where are the
redeemed Christians?] __________________________________________________
__________
- Religion is similar to a childhood neurosis:
the relationship between the child and its parents is like the
relationship between the individual and God.
[ I think the comparison is correct but not in a
pathological sense because even as an adult I am sometimes like a
child and I am glad to hope that God will comfort me like a mother.]
- Man suffers from blows of fate over which he has no
control. He personifies these as "God." → Emotional Relief.
[That seems to make sense to me.]
- Religion hinders an individual's
development into an adult, since he or she can always blame
the supernatural for everything that happens to him or her.
[In my opinion, this only applies to misunderstood
religiosity. Christian religion accepts childlike aspects of us.
We would be overstrained if we always had to act as adults.]
- He calls for the growing maturation of personality of the
individuals, so that they can take responsibility for their own
lives.
[See also my criticism concerning ` Individuation.]
- Education to reality is necessary, to assessing the
reality of the external world and acting upon it accordingly
[See sections concerning `realism´ and
functionalism, within the chapter about `Criticism
of Materialism´.]
Contemporary
Dawkins et al.Concerning the Criticism of the Christian Religion
1. Surely, the critics are right when they point out “Christian” or ecclesial one-sidednesses and misinterpretations including those mentioned above, as well as others.A worldview seems to be suboptimal (or even bad) if the
following criteria can be detected:
• it is purely anthropocentric, theocentric or
atheistic;
• it harms or sidelines people;
• it only considers people of the same worldview
to be good, and all others to be evil;
• it represents any form of ideology;
• it absolutizes parts of earthly life, or even
earthly life as a whole, and neglects to point beyond
the earthly sphere,
• it imposes strange Absolutes upon people, thus
depriving them of their freedom;
• it baits with a reward for obedient behavior -
or it taboos relative Negative and threatens with it;
• it does not correspond with the spirit of love;
and
• it places objects above people and healing
above salvation and redemption.
Comprehensively: A worldview appears less than optimal whenever it
is based upon something other than the +A or when it denies or
relativizes it. In such cases, the individual either has no
Absolute, or a strange positive Absolute, which will give them
either insufficient love or none whatsoever and sometimes may seem
to be a `stressful strategy of self-redemption´. A suboptimal
worldview possesses the same characteristics as second-rate
realities, such as listed in columns I and K of the Summary
table .
The Self-Definition of the Person is Disturbed
Further possible disadvantages correspond to the disorders listed in column I of the Summary table.
Concepts
of Self-Redemption
“Advantages”
• A person who achieves that which is demanded of him will have many "advantages", primarily in the short term. Thus, as he compares himself to others, he may feel chosen, uplifted, particularly secure etc. (= “+hyper-effects”).[378] In the long term however, the disadvantages of the sA will dominate.When I have described, in the section entitled `Metapsychiatry´, Inversions as being one of the main causes of mental illnesses, and understood these to be the confusion of the Absolute and Relative, then an optimal worldview would need to revise these inversions by establishing an actual positive Absolute (+A), which regards all that is Relative as relative and integrates it - and which, however, will not dominate P and can be freely chosen.
In the section `Metapsychology‘, I discussed the
correlation between the Absolute and the Relative (A and R). One
hypothesis asserted that the Absolute determines the Relatives.
Depending upon the respective Absolute in question, that which is
relative will either fare better or worse. This also means that
people will either fare better or worse, depending upon the spirit
that determines the earthly; and will fare best if this spirit
fulfills the criteria of a positive Absolute, such as I have listed
in the section`What
is the positive Absolute´.
In my opinion, God1 is
the only one who satisfies all of the criteria that I apply to the
+A. In this, Jesus is, for me, the most credible representative of God1,
as well as of unconditional love.
(Hints:
This is my personal view of the positive Absolute, of God1,
which does not necessarily agree with some other Christian
conceptions. See `Christian
one-sidednesses and misinterpretations´. God, of course, is more than this 'positive
Absolute'.)
In this, Jesus is, for me, the most credible representative of God1,
as well as of unconditional love. This love is revealed, first and
foremost, within freedom and orientation; freedom is being placed
above orientation. In other words, freedom and orientation are two
descendants of love, whereas freedom is the larger, and guidance the
smaller child. In religious terms, God1,
who is himself love, will also permit us the freedom to reject his
orientation, even to reject himself; since love without freedom,
without the freedom to choose, is not love. Therefore, examining the
French proverb L'amour est l'enfant de la liberté, I believe that
freedom is a child of love, and not vice versa, as the proverb
claims.
“Sin boldly but believe and rejoice in Christ even more
boldly.” (M. Luther)
[Note: Luther's statement addresses those who are too conscientious
and too afraid to sin. His words are not meant for those who neither
believe in God nor know responsibility.]
We should have no fear of false gods and devils, since, as
mentioned, there is only one single absolute Negative: the
unconditional –A, and it is up to us whether we want to embrace it
or not. All other negativity is, ultimately, solved by God. One can
only believe this, without being able to prove it, and yet one can
experience it. From this perspective, there is no deadly sins, no
emotional trauma, no severe illness, no misfortune, no rape, nor any
death that is definitive, unforgivable or irremediable.
Does Metapsychotherapy mean that we have to avoid the sA, since
they are too dangerous and might make us ill? Almost the very
opposite is true: We should not consider them to be overly
important, since it is when we consider them to be too important
that they become a domineering factor. One might then say that
it would be of the greatest importance to relativize the sA. But
also the relativizing of misabsolutizations is not the most
important thing. On the part of the individual, the most important
solution to the problem is already accomplished when one adopts an
attitude which seeks out that which is good, as a matter of
principle. (→` absolute attitude'). It would be wise then, but not obligatory, to
repeatedly remind oneself of God's absolute assurances. The sA
would then occupy their true position: a position in which they
are relativized (automatically by God) and no longer carry the
importance which they were given. We no longer need to draw from
our depleted reserves to achieve this or that, at any cost.
Rather, we would then be less stressed, more relaxed and less
fearful; and from this position, we would be more likely to
solve the as yet unresolved, relative problems, leaving others
unresolved, without being plunged into a crisis. Christians also
often forget this “meta-solution”. Then they think: “I have to
pray more!”; or else “I have to think of others more!”; or “I
have to be more grateful!” or “I need more faith in God!“ or “I
have to improve myself!” or other imperatives. These opinions
are sometimes good but when taken absolutely, they can have the
opposite effect - and can end up dominating us and even making
us ill.
• Resistance can occur in the form of
fear, induced by the freedom to choose:
That which often hinders a solution is the fear of a
decision and its consequences. Also after the
teachings of Kierkegaard, freedom makes fear into
people. Freedom is, simultaneously, the greatest
gift to people and the greatest burden.
Dostojewski's grand inquisitor intended to take this
fear away from people and eliminate freedom. He
wished to eliminate the burden of personal
responsibility, the agony of choice.[383]
• Given that our power is relativized, admitting one's limitations,
weaknesses and powerlessness to oneself cause people to be
frightened and develop resistance.
• There is resistance in the fact that people often feel frightened
whenever they are to rely upon something which is invisible, even if
it appears credible.
• Given that changes and therapies may hurt, then resistance can develop. The birth of the Self causes pain,
but, as with all other births, it is a necessary part of the
process.
• There is also resistance in the form of misunderstandings, abuse
and misinterpretations (as listed above).
• Although the inversions provide short-term benefits, it would be
good to forego them but this creates resistance.
For more on the topic in psychotherapy, see Resistance
there.
`Love your neighbor and love
yourself´ or `Love your neighbor and hate yourself´?
"Be convinced that these
strange characters have no power over you;
only the believe of them being hostile towards you can make
them hostile towards you."
E.T.A Hoffmann : Der Sandmann.
Notes / Introduction
Owing to the nature of this work, in this chapter I only comment upon specific psychotherapeutic topics that overlap with "metapsychotherapeutic" topics. In terms of concrete therapeutic references, please see section "Examples for Patients", in this section and also respective matters in the section "Psychiatry”. I propagate a “primary” form of psychotherapy, the goal of which is to strengthen and unburden the Self of patients. I, therefore, focus, in particular, on patients who, in themselves, do not possess enough self-strength to solve their own problems.
Usual Definition:
•
“Psychotherapy is the use of psychological methods,
particularly when based on regular personal interaction, to
help a person change and overcome problems in desired ways.
Psychotherapy aims to improve an individual's well-being and
mental health, to resolve or mitigate troublesome behaviors,
beliefs, compulsions, thoughts, or emotions, and to improve
relationships and social skills. Certain psychotherapies are
considered evidence-based for treating some diagnosed mental
disorders.”[386]
• I consider the term “psychotherapy” in a broad
sense, the way it was originally intended: psychḗ = `soul´
and therapeúein = `taking care of someone´. Therefore
I connect everything that is beneficial for our soul
with psychotherapy - unconcerned as to whether or not it is
scientifically approved. I consider this older understanding
of psychotherapy appropriate and comprehensive. However, the
increasing influence of science has compelled psychiatry and
psychology to become increasingly one-sided. Why? The
constraint of psychotherapy to use only “scientifically
approved methods”, is in contrast to the nature of the psyche
itself, which can only be partly scientifically explored and
can, therefore, only be treated to some extent with scientific
methods. It is for this reason that psychotherapy should also
deal with existential problems and issues that are not
provable. As has already been mentioned: the disadvantageous
separation of the `scientific´ psychotherapy on the one hand
and, on the other, the pastoral care practiced by the Church,
creates a situation that supports the rising of the esoteric
and leaves many patients without help.
How should
the optimal therapy be? Simple, trustworthy, free of charge
and lasting – like love and the deliverance/ salvation that
love offers. But as simple as it may seem, there are two
difficulties to which I would like to draw attention:
1. “Persistence of the strange Absolutes” (sA) and
2. “Resistance”.
The problem of the ”Morbid
gain” that is connected to it, I discussed within
the chapter `Metapsychiatry´.
The
earlier mentioned “redemption” is, in the first place,
spiritual, and is, in actual fact, very simple, as has already
been mentioned. However, the mental disorders underlying
It/sA-complexes are materialized and manifest themselves in
the material world. The behaviors that patients had
become accustomed to for months and years had become
automatic. They have gained life and momentum of their own
which, in the majority of cases, is lost only very gradually.
The situation in which we find people with such complexes is
comparable to that of a prisoner who has left his cell after
several years and yet is still bound by old forces and habits.[387]
Although a spiritual "revision" robs the sA/ It- complexes of
their power only in principle but not totally. As said, it
does not do so immediately because of their materialization it
takes, similar to the drug withdrawal, sometimes months or
years until they have lost their influence.[388]
Psychoanalysis
has done much to shed light on this phenomenon.[389]
• According
to S. Freud, `resistance´ is defined as an “aversion
to `reveal any repressed information from within the
unconscious mind´ and, in consequence, to a patient's
recovery and healing.
• Another definition claims that resistance is manifested “in
the patient's unconscious opposition to an improvement of
their own situation, which is caused by a secondary gain from
their illness, as well as by worries and fears of a
subconsciously perceived threat.“[390]
In my
understanding - mainly from a metatherapeutical point of view
- resistance is a phenomenon that applies not only to
psychoanalysis. I am not only referring to the patient's
resistance against his recovery/ therapy but also to the
resistance against all which is reasonable and sensible in
general, whereby this type of resistance mentioned last
include the first. Regarding resistance in a strict sense, I
see a great degree of consensus with psychoanalysis, however,
I relate the emergence of this resistance to the role of the
sA (and A). Thereby it is possible to understand that
resistance emanates from the side of the patient as well as
from the side of the therapist.[391]
Resistance may arise - in my understanding - wherever strange
Absolutes (sA) or strange Selves (sS) are to be relativized. [392]
More precisely: Resistance may arise wherever one feels
threatened by a possible loss of the advantages of the +sA/sS
or has to accept a ‒sA/sS. This is important for a better
understanding of resistance. If one attempts to relativize the
sA and sS, it wouldn't be hard - but for the earlier
stated reasons, we consider the one or other sS/sA to be
vitally important. This means that this resistance should not
only be understood to be the threat of a possible loss of an
object's positive aspects but rather, one needs to take into
account the fact, that this object was absolutized. If it is
something negative that has been absolutized, it will seem
vital to the person concerned to avoid or combat it but not to
relativize. In both cases, the affected will resist the
relativization of the strange Selves (sS ) and the
strengthening of the actual Self since their strange
Selves have to them, paradoxically, become more important
than their actual Self. For this reason, the patient
will fight that which would restore his health and will foster
that which makes him ill. The concerned is due to relativize
what he mistakenly believes is his life ("let go" =
withdrawal) and accept what he considers to be death. But both
are difficult.
The following image elucidates the locations of the resistance.
The
relevant person (P) needs to perpetuate the resistance as long
as he is unable to balance his sense of loss with a growing
strength of Self. In other words: The person P will resist the
therapy (and the consequential changes) as long as he has not
found a better Absolute than the previous one. [393]
If the pressure becomes too forceful to give up the
resistance, the patient may resort to a Contra-sA or a
different sA. If the external or internal pressure grows to
surrender, the patient increasingly feels cornered. He will
employ ever more costly defense mechanisms (see loc. cit.) to
perpetuate his sA. Nevertheless, both,
resistance and costly defenses are important/reasonable
temporary solutions as long as there is no effective solution.
They should thus be accepted by the therapist and the patient.
At the same time, the therapist needs to point out solutions
that are more profound and will prove more efficacious.
In
the section 'Psychotherapy
of Schizophrenia', I´ll come back to this topic.
1.
Resistance is directed against the perceived loss of
advantages offered by the sA/sS.
Resistance is directed against the perceived loss of an,
albeit unstable, equilibrium.
Resistance is directed against the perceived loss of a
substitute-Self that is considered to be vital, including
substitute-identity, substitute-securities,
substitute-integrity, substitute-reality, substitute-autonomy,
etc.
In summary: resistance is directed against the perceived loss
of all +* aspects (and therefore also the + sides of
counterparts of ‒sA and 0).
2. Resistance is directed against `disadvantages´ of the +A or
Self! [394]
= Resistance against love, God, the Self, right therapy,
truth, and so on.
If I'm well, maybe I'll get less attention, I may feel guilty,
I may get more responsible, the "free-fall height" may become
too great, etc. The patient gets withdrawal, catharsis, [395]
pain and responsibility instead of drugs or thrill. There are
parallels regarding the resistance against God, resp. the Self
and resistance against therapy. Jörg Müller „a lot of people
are searching God but many also fear to find him.“ Or a
prayer: „God take away my illnesses but don't touch their
causes.“
3. Resistance against the relativization of a ‒sA.
Resistance also occurs if a ‒sA, an absolutely negative
experience, which one has avoided at all cost, shall be taken
only relative negative and therefore acceptable. [396] (If you want more details look at the unabridged
German version.)
With a view to the fact that there are different realities,
the following statement seems consequential: Attempting to
shift from a second-rate reality to a first-rate reality, a
person (P) needs often to go through a zero point (a point of
powerlessness and uncertainty) which will frighten him.
Defense is
directed against that which is experienced as being negative.
Resistance is directed against that which is subjectively
negative but objectively positive. Thus, one could define
resistance as a special defensive mechanism (DM) - that is,
resistance as a defense against that which is experienced as
negative, in spite of it, in fact, being positive. However,
this would lead to misunderstandings.
Using the example of debt, the defense would be a repression
of the fact that one is in debt. Resistance would be directed
against saving money.[397]
The double-character of `Inversions´ causes
ambivalent tendencies within us because we are putting
resistance against things that are objectively better for us
and are wishing for things that are objectively
disadvantageous for us. But fortunately, the original
“healthy” aspirations and desires don´t perish because of
that.
In certain phases conflicting tendencies are in a costly
balance:
We wish the objective positive and at the same time the
objective negative. Or we want and fear the good and the bad
equally. We wish to recover our health and yet, we do not. We
desire to be free and remain captive. We become fearful
whenever we attempt to change an expensive balance. We lack
the courage to “die and become”. However, we should not be
afraid. We fear to die but we will merely die a lesser death
and then come into our real life.
Desire and resistance may coincide whenever we fail to love
ourselves for the sake of ourselves. Why? It is because we
love ourselves primarily for the sake of our achievements. If
we fulfill our expectations and accomplish our aims, we feel
exuberant and have a strong desire to experience more success.
At the same time, however, the fulfillment of our new
expectations will become rather too exhausting, causing us to
resist the challenge to accomplish our aims. In this way, we
fluctuate between the desire to be loved for the sake of
ourselves or our accomplishments, and our resistance against
the one or the other. Thus, we may oscillate between the most
diverse inner conflicts or find that something is superb and
at the same time it threatens to tear us apart. But from a
second-rate perspective, this problem cannot be solved. P
would have to adopt the first-rate perspective in order to
find a solution; however, the patient would then need to
relinquish the benefits of a P²-position.
"What
is the difference between a neurotic, a psychotic, and a
psychiatrist:
The
neurotic builds castles in the sky, the psychotic lives in them and
the psychiatrist
collects the rent." (Anonymous)
Question:
Could it be, that some psychiatrists do not want to give up this
`rent´?
In the following paragraphs, I will consider only with keywords the most important psychotherapeutic schools of thought (PT) since I view the most of them to be good or suboptimal, and none of them bad or harmful. For me, this is primarily a theoretical debate, since, in practice, many therapists will ignore norms and restrictions of the conventional medicine and rather follow the promptings of their hearts.
Anthropocentric Foundation |
||
Anthropocentric Secular |
||
Classification |
Method |
Founder/Representatives |
analytical depth psychology |
Psychoanalysis
(PsyA)
Individual-psychology Analytical psychology Psychoanalytic self-psychology Object-relations-theory Attachment theory Structural psychology Intersubjective psychoanalysis Neuro-psychoanalysis Being-analysis Hypnosis Katathym-imaginative Psychotherapy or Guided imagery Transactional Analysis |
Sigmund Freud Alfred Adler C. G. Jung Heinz Kohhut Melanie Klein, S. Ferenczi, M. Balint John Bowlby, Mary Ainsworth Jaques Lacan R. D. Stolorow and others M. Solms, M. Mancia et al. L. Binswanger, M. Boss Milton Erickson Hanscarl Leuner et al. Eric Berne |
behavior therapy |
Behaviorism Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) |
Thorndike, Watson, Skinner et al. A. Ellis, Beck, Kanfer, Lazarus et al. |
systematical |
Systemic Therapy |
Satir, Haley, Jackson and others |
humanistic |
Rational emotive behavior therapy Logotherapy and Existential Analysis Gestalt-therapy Person-centered therapy (PCT) Psychodrama Integrative and Embodyment Psychotherapy |
A. Ellis Viktor Frankl F.S. Perls, P. Goodman Carl R. Rogers Jakob L. Moreno See corresponding text. |
anthropocentric spiritual |
||
humanistic spiritual |
Analytic psychotherapy Transpersonal-psychotherapy |
C.G. Jung, Viktor Frankl S. Grof, F. Vaughan, A. Maslow, R. Walsh, R.D. Laing, Ch. Tart, R. Assagioli, K. Wilber |
christocentric foundation (anthropocentric-theocentric) |
||
christian
|
Analytic Depth-psychology Biblical Pastoral care Pastoral-psychology |
Wilfried Daim Eugen Drewermann Michael Dieterich Pastoral Psychologist Pastoral Psychologist |
“You can’t, if you can’t feel it, if it
never
Rises from the soul, and sways
The heart of every single hearer,
With deepest power, in simple ways.” Goethe, Faust.
These are psychotherapeutic schools of thought, the basis of which is commonly an anthropocentric view of man and, in terms of philosophy, materialism. With regard to their epistemological foundation, they are frequently rationalistic and empiricist. Therefore, one might term them 'secular psychotherapies' or, more precisely, 'secularistic psychotherapies'.
• The
deliberate self-limitation of psychology to accept only an
anthropocentric, scientifically founded image of mankind
necessarily restricts the potential of a respective therapy.
According to Karl Jaspers, philosophy looks at the whole,
whereas science attends to the particular and the
detail. [399] Thus, secular psychotherapies are, in a certain
sense, unrealistic since they merely appreciate the part of
reality that is verifiable. All other matters are of little
or no relevance. However, there is a further problem: A
person cannot redeem himself, he can only solve problems
within the limits of his resources. It seems to me that all
earthly beings, including us humans, can only help, save,
redeem and love one another in rather limited ways:
ultimately, we are all alone. This bitter truth is, however,
covered up by most ideologues. Who is it that gives opium to
people? Surely, it is not Christ, nor a type of Christianity
that truly follows his teachings but rather, most
ideologies, even those which propagate materialism, by
proclaiming the illusory message that man or progress itself
might, at some point, solve humanity's problems. In truth, a
stark, bleak, cold and sterile worldview is put forward, in
the light of which a human is reduced to mere matter and
that, which makes him man, is taken from him.
• The one-sided aspiration to pursue scientificity makes the
scientist blind to the meta-level, that is to say, that the
scientist is unable to perceive potential solutions for which there
are no proofs. These psychotherapies will not go beyond pure
rationalism and objectivism.
• Treated with secular psychotherapies, patients
struggling with existential and spiritual problems will feel less
well understood.[400]
• Anthropocentric psychotherapies believe that
the solution to all psychological problems can be found in
the individuals themselves (self-optimization and
self-redemption). This means that secular psychotherapies
ultimately rely on the individual's I-strength, which is, in
my view, inferior to Self-strength. This places the
therapist and patient under too much pressure since both are
required to meet specific demands under all
circumstances.
• Secular psychotherapies rarely disclose the
philosophical foundations on which they are based.[401]
• The interplay of guidance ("law") and love (grace) is not solved.
In other words: An absolutization of love (in religious terms: God)
is missing, which would provide an optimum of guidance but
subordinate this guidance to love - this is an attitude that we try
to adopt in relationships with our children. But, if the guidance
which is given then becomes one-sided or a priority, this might
overwhelm the patient. However, if, by way of an emergency solution,
this guidance is avoided or denied, the patient remains
unchallenged.
• Secular psychotherapies contain or create paradoxes whenever they
attempt to use science in order to give patients rationality against
that which is irrational and metaphysical, or else whenever they
attempt to use objectivity to treat that which is mostly subjective
in man - his psyche. Wherever such paradoxes arise, they will
promote disease.
• Secular psychotherapies promote
their opposites: spiritualism and
Esoterism.
• Secular psychotherapies struggle too much against that which is
merely relatively negative or for that which is merely relatively
positive; on the other hand, they give up too quickly when faced
with existential issues or repress them.
• Secular psychotherapies tend to absolutize mental health and
functionality.
• Secular psychotherapies are based on a relative or second-rate
image of man, which will not provide an optimal basis for therapy.[402]
• Secular psychotherapies tend to avoid suffering and crises. Too
little attention is given to the work of mourning.
• The unconscious is to become conscious, unfavorable behavior is to
be replaced by favorable etc., however, a meta-level which might
relativize the issues at hand is not offered. This is a
disadvantage, since, firstly, the unconscious should well at times
be preferable to the conscious, and unfavorable behavior should at
times be preferable to favorable; and secondly: Even if the
conscious and favorable behavior is objectively the best, the
affected may be unable and overtaxed to achieve these goals.
• Since, in materialism, the existence of a free will is negated,
this will have a paralyzing effect on psychotherapies: In this way,
culprits rapidly become victims, too.
• Secular psychotherapies have a tendency to standardize complex
issues. Even a mundane question such as: "How can I best get to the
next city?" cannot be answered mechanically, let alone life's
questions. Concrete answers/ solutions always depend on the
individual person and the specific situation, in spite of all
experiences.
• Secular psychotherapies are always in danger of manipulating
others. The patient becomes a case and the psychiatrist becomes a
technician.
• Secular psychotherapies themselves display similar defense
mechanisms that they mean to reduce for their patients: the
repression of existential questions, rationalization, regression
toward a claim of sole legitimate representation, projections,
exclusion (co-operation only with other sciences), etc.
However, I think it is wrong to devalue secular and atheistic views
from the outset. A type of atheism which is guided by humanism is
often better than a misunderstood belief in God. In addition, most
therapists have a large amount of empathy which might, at times,
make up for weaknesses in their theories. Nonetheless, secular
psychotherapy, when rigorously applied, can only be sub-optimal at
best, since it overtaxes (rarely sub-challenges) both the patient
and the therapist. The existence of an absolute, positive spiritual
power is rejected. Thus, a basic trust that would point the patient
to a being beyond himself is ignored, and ultimate responsibility
for his well-being is imposed on the patient himself. This will only
succeed if he is strong enough to deal with the problems. But
if the problems are greater than the powers available, the system
will be in crisis. This applies both to relevant intrapersonal as
well as interpersonal and thus also to therapeutic situations.
Whilst atheistic conceptions despiritualize the image of man as well
as the corresponding therapy and mechanize both, one may well find
also misunderstood spirituality in those concepts. Whilst atheistic
therapists will tend to avoid questions that expose to us our
helplessness, for example in the face of incurable disease or death,
some spiritual therapies or beliefs give those affected false hopes.
(See also criticism of Materialistic
positions in the part 'Metapsychotherapy'.)
Further differentiation of psychotherapies that are guided by anthropocentrism into materialistic or else idealistic therapies is somewhat arbitrary, according to some psychotherapeutic schools of thought. However, the relevance of such an undertaking lies in the fact that psychotherapies with an idealistic basis are able to consider matters that cannot be proved (ideas, mind, etc.). Whilst analytically oriented psychotherapies (psychoanalysis, depth psychology) and behavioral therapies start out from a materialistic basis, the psychotherapies that I have listed under the headline "spiritual-integrative" tend to rather idealistic and/ or relate, in part, to religious positions.
I will briefly deal with individual topics that
are necessary for the understanding of this work.
[In the process I comment on some points in
square brackets and explain other things in a separate
section.]
Psychoanalysis
assumes that psychical conflicts, which are not solved, can
make sick. The unresolved psychical conflict or the
unprocessed trauma goes into the unconscious, changes itself
and appears in a different form (ciphered, symbolized) - as a
dream or a symptom for example. The symptom thus becomes the
symbol of the unresolved/ unprocessed unconscious conflict/
trauma. In early psychoanalysis, it was recognized that the
suppression of important drives (esp. sex drive) can lead to
psychical disturbances,[403] and
conversely a making conscious and repealing of this
prohibition also removes its negative consequences.
[According to my
terminology, the latter corresponds to a relativization of a
negative strange Absolute (‒sA). I believe,
however, that the crucial 'therapeutic' mean of psychoanalysis
is less to discover unconscious complexes and to make them
aware but to attribute the worst to every human being - such
as killing the father or to have sex with mother, and those
desires to understand as human and normal and accept the
patient in this way. Because even if it is not these wishes,
there are similar abysses in each of us (so the theory). Thus,
Sigmund Freud fully agrees with Jesus, even if Freud did not
intend.]
According to Th. Auchter and L. V. Strauss: Freud is concerned
primarily with the goal of saving mental energy and
maintaining mental balance. According to Freud, the balance
between the pleasure principle and the reality principle is
central. The psychoanalysis "sensitizes humans to trace the
meaning of their action and life by an `infinite analysis´ by
a continuous questioning and reflection. To this extent,
psychoanalysis is a form of the incessant search for truth, as
Freud put it.”[404]
[“This never-ending
quest for truth”, this never-finally-to-a-goal-coming, which
corresponds to the Confucian and Buddhist motto: “The route is
the goal", seems to me - and probably also to most people who
take it seriously - too exhausting and frustrating.]
S. Freud saw, following his three-instances-model, these
fundamental conflicts:
a) Ego against the Id
b) Super-Ego against the Id
c) Ego against Super-Ego and Id.[405]
According to Mentzos, all psychical conflicts are variations
of the basic conflict between autonomy and dependency.[406]
[I distinguish an absolute
basic conflict between +A and ‒A and relative conflicts,
especially between +A and the sA, the sA among each other and
conflicts within each sA or It.]
Selection of Literature
I will
only mention the reviews, which I also acknowledge.
• The 'New Viennese School' sees the person as a physical,
spiritual and mental unity. It accuses Freud's psychoanalysis
of neglecting the spiritual dimension of the person since
without this the person could not constitute a human whole.
"The whole of the human soul is viewed atomistically within
the psychoanalysis by being thought of as composed of
individual parts, the various impulses, and these in turn from
partial drives ... In this way, however, the soul, the human
person, is somehow destroyed (its entirety). The
psychoanalysis virtually depersonalizes human beings but not
without personalizing … the individual parts (namely to
make independent, self-sufficient, pseudo-personal entities).”
... Furthermore: “Human nature is therefore interpreted by
psychoanalysis as being driven from the outset." Next, Freud
would have betrayed the Ego to Id, so to speak because he made
the Ego to a mere epiphenomenon of the Id. Freud would assert:
'The Ego is pulling itself out of the swamp of the Id by
Super-Ego´s tuft of hair.´"[407]
• H. Wahl: Freud propagated a "reality-education". Freud
"would not go beyond the bravely resigned adherence to the
reality principle ...".[408]
• Ernst Bloch: The psychoanalysis is too backward looking.
• "Good story but bad science" (Zimbardo). [409]
• “Psychoanalysis is confession
without absolution.” (G.K. Chesterton)[410]
• Otherwise see e.g., E. Wiesenhütter: "Freud and his
Critics".[411]
Other Criticisms [412]
See also
the discussion about the secular
PT and Criticism of Materialism)
• The psychoanalysis knows no transcendence, so also no
+Absolute. Freud: "Whoever asks
after the sense of life is sick because the sense of
life does not exist in the objective way. "[413]
• Love is presented as libido. God does not exist, he is an
illusion.
• The psychoanalysis basically describes only the second-rate
processes.
That, what I name first-rate, I cannot find.
• The further developments of Freudian psychoanalysis also
represent anthropocentric self-solution concepts, which, in my
opinion, overstrain people. People have to deal alone with
their problems. Especially with regard to severe mental
disorders, such as the psychoses, these therapeutic concepts
seem to be too weak as they build on Ego-strength and less on
Self-strength. S. Freud may have had therefore a reason to be
skeptical about psychotherapy of psychoses. (To this more at
another place).
• Psychoanalysis characterizes the person based on pathology.
The three main instances are ultimately instances of a strange
or ill person. They are therefore defined accordingly.
According to psychoanalysis, the Ego has the task of
establishing the mental balance between the instances (to get
the Id and Super-Ego in the "grip"). Freud: "An action of the
Ego is then correct if the requirements of the Id, the
Super-Ego and the reality are fulfilled at the same time, in
other words, if the action reconciles their demands with each
other.”[414]
[What an effort and tightrope walk (!) if the Ego
has to mediate between the Super-Ego, It and reality. It is
more favorable when Ego/resp. I, Id and Super-Ego are
subordinated to the Self of the person. This is only possible
when they have no absolute meaning. Then the person does not
get panicked if the Id crosses the line and cannot be made
guilty by the Super-Ego, nor does the person demand the Ego to
bring everything under control or balance. In this way Id,
Super-Ego and Ego/ I are accents but not dominants.]
• The enmity between father and son as described by Freud in the
Oedipus complex is only one possibility of an unresolved problem
between father and son, a kind of anti-complex. Another possibility
is the symbiosis between father and son. The third possibility is
the indifference between the two. Especially the latter two are now
more common than the Oedipus complex. These possibilities apply to
all the relationships and not just the ones between father and son.
• Dilemmas of the theory: It is a contradiction when Freud wants to
illuminate with his "God Logos" the unconscious, from which he says
on the other hand, that the unconscious is not subjected to the laws
of logic.
• Before Freud, the drives were suppressed by morality, after Freud,
they are suppressed by rationality.
• S. Freud has also expressed different views on the
phenomenon of freedom and marked it generally as unscientific.
[Question: Why should P be treated with an ultimately pessimistic therapy?]
Summary in Keywords
Positive: Positive:
Old gods at Freud´s time, such morality and parents, were
rightly unmasked and dethroned by psychoanalysis and thus
people were freed from them. [But for this the "God Logos" has
been established.]
Psychoanalysis propagates the unconditional acceptance of all
the drawbacks of the patient; It is very differentiated with
many new insights and, in spite of the claim to scientificity,
goes beyond this.[416] It is
against false taboos and does not know any subjection to the
zeitgeist.
Negative: Partly
pseudo-religious, too pessimistic, too demanding, never ending
as analysis, missing spirituality, missing +A, too much
looking back. Psychology is explained negatively. Positive and
healthy aspects get too little attention; To one-sided
consideration of sexuality and aggression (Freud), neglection
of the subject. Language too materialistic, mechanistic, and
so on - so people are partly denoted as objects (for example
psychical 'apparatus', 'objects') and things are
personalized.
For the comparison of anticathexis in psychoanalysis and in this work see anticathexis in `Remedies of defense´ or in the unabridged German version.
Here are some keywords:[417]
Freud's
main focus was on the drive theory. Sandor Ferenczi,
Michael Balint and Melanie Klein
placed the early-child relationships to reference persons at the
center of their theories = object-relations theories. According to
Melanie Klein, the former reference persons ("objects") can either
be loved or hated, which shows parallels to Freud's libido and
destrudo [and a parallel to +sA and ‒sA.]
Heinz Kohut developed a
self-psychology. He studied how many objects a person needs to build
and maintain the psychical functioning
of his Self. Kohut assumed that "the goal of the self is to achieve
cohesion of self-life". The Self needs the empirical knowledge of
satisfying self-object experiences. A lack of sympathetic resonance
of the parental self-objects can cause a disturbance of the Self.[418]
Erich Fromm: Neurosis originates where human avoids
his freedom.
Franz G. Alexander: "... proceeded from the
observation that neurotics are generally not only overly
morally in some way but and on the other hand are just as
hardly morally. He recognized that both the immorality and the
neurotic pseudo-morality are two sides of one and the same
coin and that they are in a functional dependency
relationship.[419]
[This corresponds to the pro- and contra- position of the Its of the
asp.12.]
C. G. Jung emphasizes the archetypes in his teaching.
Criticism to it from W. Schmidt* - `the archetypes are the new
gods of C. G. Jung. Only the reference to them gives life its
meaning. The last metaphysical hold of a human being lies
within himself. Psychology becomes a worldview. The idea of
the archetype is a mentally hypostatized product of
abstraction.'
(*I cannot find the source again but the quote
corresponds to my opinion.)
Jung made two main statements: "Become who you are,"
"Recognize yourself" (→`individuation´).
[420]
Criticism by Trüb: Jung looks for `the essential determination
of man ultimately in the process of psychical self-reference´.
(See also my criticism concerning Individuation)
I particularly mention this therapy by Arthur
Janov because I refer to some of his thoughts, although his
theories have never been recognized by official psychotherapy and
have become less and less important in the last 20 years, at least
in Germany. In the early 1970s,
his book "The Urschrei" appeared, to which I refer.[421] There he describes his 'primal therapy', which,
similar to the Psychoanalysis of S. Freud, assumes that
neuroses arise by repressed memories of traumatic experiences
from childhood. However, Janov did not only talk about early
traumatization but also about peri- and prenatal traumas, here
in particular, a rejection of the fetus by the mother and / or
the father. The primary needs of the unborn or infant of
unconditional acceptance and love were not satisfied, and so a
"primal pain" arose in it - the cause of later neurotic
disorders. This primal pain must be made conscious and lived
through once more ("cathartic experience") - usually linked
with the so-called `primal scream´ to release the 'true self'.
Later it would be entirely easy to live. Janov: `It is a
herculean task to be what one is not. To be yourself is the
simplest thing to do.´[422]
Discussion:
- I also believe that you have the easiest life with your true
or original Self, which you do not have to earn but you have
it already.
- Janov connects the 'true self', just like me, with being a
child. But on the other hand, I think that this being a child
in itself is problematic, if this is the primary therapeutic
goal and this `child´ is not protected in a larger whole (for
me `God '). Otherwise, it is alone and vulnerable and the
therapist is not always present and overall for this role too
weak.
- Janov tries to reduce the defense mechanisms or make them
superfluous but generally, he sees them too negatively. I see
their role as second-rate and try to strengthen them so that
they are available in an emergency.
- Janov transfers the causes of neuroses, the primal pain,
into the prenatal or perinatal area not foremost into early
childhood. This is somewhat similar to my theory, according to
which, as described in the part `Metapsychiatry´, I see the
primal pain as the pain because we have lost paradise.
- Unconditional love and
recognition are central to Janov, but without religious
affiliation. For those
affected too weak because no one can love completely
unconditionally.
- Relativization of authorities: Old gods, as
they can be represented by morality, parents and so on are
rightly dethroned. The concerned learns that nothing will
happen to him and that he does not die if he has overthrown
the morality, the parents or other things - on the contrary,
he feels liberated and good.
Do we not all have the longing to be
allowed to be free and absolutely loved: without
responsibilities, without necessary achievements, without
fear? Are not the most beautiful moment in our lives these, in
which we simply let go, like in an orgasm, nothing more to
control, no defense mechanisms needed and we sometimes scream
out like with primal scream?
In my opinion, primal therapy has insights that should not
simply be dismissed as unscientific - perhaps because it sheds
light on the sphere that science alone cannot illuminate? We
also try to create in our psychotherapies a similar atmosphere
for our patients in which they can feel free, safe and
understood like beloved children. Have not therapists
repeatedly rightly said we should love the "inner child in
us", and called this "rebirth" like the "reincarnation
therapy" following the Buddhist religion? Even the Christian
religion speaks of being (spiritual) newborn when we dare to
be God's children (not the child of our parents!).
But how might establish psychotherapy, which understands
itself as science and therefore favors above all measurements,
examines and controls, can agree with such an uncontrollable
method as the "primal-scream-therapy"? Dear reader, imagine
how it would have been if the "primal-scream-therapy" would
have entered our practices and clinics. Who would have
accepted the whole moaning, talking and shouting of rebirth?
We, psychotherapists, hardly dare to hug a patient or cry with
him.
Other opinions: Bert Hellinger about his own therapy
with Janov: "It affected me. But on the other hand, you will
have incredible freedom at such a moment." But see also at the
very negative criticism by Hansjörg Hemminger.[423]
W. Wöller
and J. Kruse distinguish four paradigms of psychoanalysis:
[424]
1. The drive-psychological paradigm: aggression and sex drive
are regarded as motivating forces.
2. The ego-psychological paradigm, which mainly concentrates
on the defense mechanisms and other Ego functions.
3. The self-psychological paradigm: According to Kohut changes
in therapy are not primarily the result of interpretations or
insight but of empathy.
4. The object-relationship theory paradigm: This assumes that
all mental structures are results of past object experiences:
external object relations become internalized object
relations. "These internalized object relations form a world
of representations. In this context, the term `representation´
means that real inner images, that are created by interactions
with important other persons (objects) no matter if real or
imagined interactions. Those representations have an object
aspect (object-representation) and a self-aspect
(self-representation). … Intrapsychic and interpersonal
aspects are closely intertwined."(p. 26) According to
Kernberg's object-relations-theory, the representatives are
organized into good and bad depending on how these satisfy
needs. In the beginning, they are undifferentiated good or bad
self-object units which later on only gradually differ from
each other. (p. 17)
As mentioned in `Metapsychiatry´ we owe to Winnicott the
concept of the true and false Self. According to Kohut, a
lifelong need exists for reflection through so-called empathic
self-objects. The authors emphasize the importance of the next
reference person, such as a mother or a therapist and so on,
who reacts to the infant (patient).[425]
[In short, we all need love.
Where, however, should get the affected receive love if the
important attachment figures have love deficits too or the
society is loveless?]
Wöller and Kruse recommend a variety of perspectives in
therapy: the perspective of conflict-orientation, the
strengthening of the Ego-functions, the perspective of a
possible traumatization, the perspective of the transference
relationship, the problem perspective and resource
perspective, as well as a perspective that has solutions
instead of problems in its center. (p. 29)
[In the present
work I try to present even more varied perspectives that can
be integrated into a "meta-dimension", the + A but that is
missing in the above-mentioned concepts.]
In this chapter I limit myself to a few aspects
of cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT).
[As before, I comment positions, which deviating of me, in square
brackets.]
Keywords on Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) [426]
CBT is
based on cognitivism. Cognitivism is a branch of
psychology, which is primarily concerned with information
processing and higher cognitive functions of man. Cognitivism
has a materialistic basis. The cognitive therapy methods,
including cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and rational
emotive behavioral therapy (REBT), assume that the way we
think determines how we feel and behave. The aim of the
therapy is to communicate to the client, that thought-errors
and irrational assumptions have negative consequences.
Therefore, it is important to identify and correct negative
thoughts. This shall lead to the development of more precise
and more adapted thinking and behavior.
Concerning the discussion with CBT here, I refer to the Criticism
of Materialism and to 'Discussion
about secular psychotherapies'.
Since these criticisms essentially apply to the CBT, I will not
repeat everything here again.
The discussion between cognitive and non-cognitive standpoints can
be followed in corresponding publications.[427]
I want to
add additional criticism of the
known cognitive therapy of depressions by A.T. Beck.[428]
Due to the schemata learned during childhood - according to
Beck - information-processings of depressive persons are
flawed. This leads to the following 11 thinking distortions:
1.
ALL-OR-NOTHING
THINKING: You see things in black-and-white categories.
2. OVERGENERALIZATION: You see a single negative event as a never-
ending pattern of defeat.
3. MENTAL FILTER: You pick out a single negative detail and dwell on
it exclusively .
4. DISQUALIFYING THE POSITIVE: You reject positive experiences by
insisting they "don't count" for some reason or other.
5. JUMPING TO CONCLUSIONS: You make a negative interpretation though
there are no definite facts that convincingly support conclusion.
6. MAGNIFICATION (CATASTROPHIZlNG) OR MINIMIZATION: You exaggerate
the importance of things … or
you inappropriately shrink things until they appear tiny.
7. EMOTIONAL REASONING: You assume that your negative emotions
necessarily reflect the way things really are: “I feel it, therefore
it must be true.”
8. SHOULD STATEMENTS: You try to motivate yourself with shoulds and
shouldn'ts, as if you had to be whipped and punished before you
could be expected to do anything. “Musts” and “oughts” are also
offenders.
9. LABELING AND MISLABELING: This is an extreme form of
overgeneralization. Instead of describing your error, you attach a
negative label to yourself.
10. PERSONALIZATION: You see yourself as the cause of some negative
external events which in fact you were not primarily responsible
for.
11. SELF-WORTH: You make an arbitrary decision that in order to
accept yourself as worthy, okay, or to simply, feel good about your-
self, you have to perform in a certain way.
Discussion:
Like Beck and others, I also assume that such 'thinking
distortions' can cause diseases. They are similar to the sA/
It complexes in this script.
There are, however, the following differences in the concepts:
I regard these unfavorable schemes as only relatively
unfavorable, even if they have an absolute character for the
person concerned. Even if they are generally rather
unfavorable they can also be relatively favorable since they
can have an important function or a meaning for the person
concerned. This view means that it should not be a primary
therapeutic goal to identify 'negative thoughts' and to
correct them to develop more accurate and adapted ideas.
More in detail:
(1) As said, these `false thoughts´ might be favorable and
meaningful for the person concerned.
(2) Even if they would be objectively unfavorable to the person, it
may be the case that he is not capable of correcting these
"deficiencies in thought" and then faces a therapeutic claim that
overburdens him and thus possibly intensifies his symptoms.
This is often the case when the affected (especially as a child) is
confronted with overstraining ideologies against which he has no
chance. For that reason, in a particular case, I would not only rate
some relatively unfavorable schemes and mental deficits as positive,
but even advise to exacerbate or exaggerate them - especially if
they are taboo by the person or the environment (and also by his
therapists). This type of procedure is also the basis of paradoxical
interventions. They have the goal to break open fixed attitudes,
even of us therapists, and to show alternatives. But as much as they
go in the right direction, even they do not produce a real
independent meta-level because these paradoxical interventions are
ultimately used now with the aim to achieve the therapeutic goal.
What in both cases is missing is a, of all therapy-targets
independent, meta-position, a +A, which states that all therapy
goals have a value but ultimately are only of relative importance.
Should we not embrace and console someone who is not doing well and
we like him and only after that consider what one could do but not
have to do? Behavioral therapy does not embrace, it lacks love.
The approach of the CBT resembles some "Christian" advices, e.g.:
"If you only live properly, believe or pray enough, then you will
become healthy." In the sense of this work, one could also
formulate, that the CBT and similar secular therapies try to expel a
sA by a new sA. These new sA are here first of all Ego-strength,
correct cognition, health, functionality, correct behavior, ratio,
reality and objectivity.
(See also: absolutizing of Health, Functioning
etc. in `metapsychiatry'.)
Criticism
It is
only reasonable if this method has only a relative meaning (in
the sense of a healthy optimism), which also allows its
opposite and is used in the right situations. (It may be
just as meaningful to practice negative thinking, especially
when one thinks that a negative have to be suppressed or
combated.)
Otherwise, I see the following disadvantages of the method of
"positive thinking": too anthropocentric, too self-redemptive,
too demanding, too unrealistic, too manipulative, too
one-sided and narrowing (negative thoughts are undesired or
forbidden).
After a certain time, it becomes disadvantageous. [431] The loss of reality and disappointments that lead
to self-accusation and depression are preprogrammed according
to the motto: "If you do not succeed, then you have to blame
yourself ... The trainer [therapist] remains infallible" (O.
Neuberger). Similarly,
my criticism of "The Work" by Katie Byron and similar
programs for self-optimization. In opposite to "The Work,"
I would call my approach "The Relief".
The 2007 award-winning Norwegian film "The Art of Negative
Thinking" shows impressively what overstretched positive
thinking looks like.
Summary
• CBT is a
very differentiated therapy with good success in phobias and
other mild mental illnesses.
• CBT is anthropocentric with all its advantages and
disadvantages. The main disadvantage: man is left to rely on
himself (self-redemption concept).
• CBT appears like a too symptomatic therapy.
• Learning and functioning are absolutized. Man, however, is
more than this and can achieve more than only with knowledge
and logic. Man is also irrational by nature. In this concept,
his irrationality receives a too negative evaluation and must
be countered or negated/repressed by CBT (unconsciously).
"Rational arguments often prove to be ineffective despite the
client's insight." (J. Teasdale) [432]
• CBT is too psychologistical, too operationalized.
• The by Beck mentioned errors in reasoning (see above) are
too one-sided (negatively) evaluated.
• In Beck's concept, among other things, the opposite to
depression (mania) as well as their common background are too
little considered.
Created in
1955 by Albert Ellis. It sees itself as humanistic
psychotherapy, as "comprehensive, integrative,
active-directive, philosophically and empirically founded
psychotherapy".It has, according to its own data, an
explicitly formulated philosophical background (stoicism,
epicureanism, skepticism, existential philosophy,
constructivism and linguistic philosophy). It builds on the
so-called "abc model":
a triggering external or internal event (a = activating
event), such as the death of a family member, is evaluated by
certain conscious or unconscious beliefs, assessment patterns,
attitudes or habits (b = beliefs) which are activated in the
triggering situation. This assessment of the events as a
consequence (c = consequences) then evokes emotional reactions
and behaviors (for example grief, worries, anxiety). This
means that the evaluation of an event (b) determines the
emotional responses and behaviors.
According to Ellis, mental disorders are caused by
"irrational" beliefs and evaluations. He calls convictions
“irrational” if they are subjectively burdensome and if they
hinder the realization of one's own life goals.
"The aim of the procedure is to recognize the irrational ...
evaluations and to change them. This is supposed to help the
patient to a more 'rational' life-style ... ".[433]
My review:
• Overall like the criticism of cognitive behavioral therapy.
(See above).
• Although the REBT covers philosophical perspectives, it is
too anthropocentric and has the disadvantages as I described in Discussion
about secular psychotherapies.
Dialectical
behavior therapy is especially for the treatment of borderline
personality disorders (BPD). The therapist should find a
balance between understanding and change (dialectical
strategy). Apparent contrasts in the patient's world are to be
resolved and integrated. The manual includes therapeutic
elements of cognitive behavioral therapy, social psychology,
neurobiology and aspects of far-eastern meditation and
spirituality. The skill training takes place regularly and
consists of the five `modules': internal mindfulness,
interpersonal effectiveness, emotion regulation, distress
tolerance and self-acceptance.
My review:
• Overall very differentiated and partly also philosophically
based therapy offering good successes in treating borderline
disturbances.
• The Buddhist elements of the therapy are too
anthropocentric.
• Similar disadvantages as CBT. (Otherwise see also criticism
of Secular
psychotherapies and Buddhism.)
Mindfulness-based
cognitive therapy has been evaluated by methodologically
demanding studies. They show that MBCT as a relapse prevention
is more effective than the usual treatment and at least as
effective as antidepressant maintenance therapy. It may also
be an effective method for chronic depression and insomnia. [435]
• See criticism
CBT, anthropocentrism and Buddhism.
MCT refers
to the human capacity to be aware of and control one's own
thoughts and internal mental processes.
"Metacognitions are beliefs about cognitions, cognitive
processes and processes of attention-management. They
determine which strategies a person takes as a reaction to
internal events and control and monitor their adequate use ...
In the metacognitive theory, positive and negative
metacognitions are distinguished. Positive metacognitions
describe the usefulness of a particular strategy and are
responsible for the selection of the same. Negative
metacognitions, on the other hand, are beliefs about the
uncontrollability of certain processes ... or their
dangerousness ... These problematic strategies are summarized
under the term `cognitive attention syndrome (CAS) '.The
purpose of the MCT is to abolish the CAS and to change the
associated metacognitive beliefs. Patients gain flexible
control over their cognitive and attention processes." [436]
Discussion: Despite its claim, metacognition remains in
a similarly closed system as the BT (behavioral therapies), a
slightly larger box instead of the smaller one.
Instead of eliminating irrational patterns of thought, the
goal is to change unfavorable beliefs to gain control of the
thinking processes.
Otherwise criticism as with CBT.
Our
computers may soon have more optimized counseling and
behavioral programs than the best behavioral therapist. The
computer is already superior to humans in playing chess.
Like a chess computer, this `BT-PC' will always know the best
answers for millions of problems.
The patients are then treated and reprogrammed like machines -
there are programs to increase self-esteem, against
depression, against stress etc. This means, after receiving a
large number of data the computer will give a more scientific
based and functionally better advice than the therapist. Not
that such programs are bad but the best computer will have no
answer to the crucial and existential questions: Who am I?
What is happiness? Is there God? Is there a life after death?
Does my wife love me? Does life have a meaning?
This means that from a certain point onward, the most optimal
but sterile, bloodless responses of a computer or an equally
acting psychocrat are no longer useful.They miss the mark or
have opposite effects.
[Also here only keywords]
The humanistic psychotherapies are often referred to as a
'third force' besides depth psychology and behavioral therapy.
They are based on a holistic view of the human being who
strives for meaning, self-realization and personal growth in
his life.
Among others the following methods can be named:
• Logotherapy (V. Frankl)
• Systemic psychotherapies
• Conversational psychotherapy
• Integrative psychotherapy and Gestalt therapy
• Psychodrama.
Logotherapy "aims at activating the noetic layers of personality to enable the patient to find the meaning of his existence and thereby free himself from the neurotic life reactions." “Logotherapy is founded upon the belief that it is the striving to find a meaning in one's life that is the primary, most powerful motivating and driving force in humans.” [438].
I
personally consider a systemic viewpoint in analysis and
psychotherapy as essential.
A 'weak point': System members are seen as too
context-dependent. Then, they have no own Absolute after the
concept of this theory.
I
dealt with this topic in the chapter `Personal system- and relationship disorders´
more closely.
It intends
to integrate analytical, humanistic, behavioral and systemic
approaches. It is differential, eclectic, integrative,
inter-methodological and various schools incorporating.
"Gestalt therapy is an existential/experiential form of
psychotherapy that emphasizes personal responsibility, and
that focuses upon the individual's experience in the present
moment, the therapist-client relationship, the environmental
and social contexts of a person's life, and the
self-regulating adjustments."[439] “The core of the Gestalt Therapy process is
enhanced awareness of sensation, perception, bodily
feelings, emotion, and behavior, in the present moment.
Relationship is emphasized, along with contact between the
self, its environment, and the other.” (Cit. Fritz Perls en
wikipedia).
Discussion see: 'Criticism
of Humanism' and Buddhism.
Antonovsky, the founder of salutogenesis,
puts a so-called "coherence feeling" at the center of his answer to
the question "How does health arise?".
Antonovsky defined the `Sense of Coherence´ as: "a global orientation
that expresses the extent to which one has a pervasive, enduring
though dynamic feeling of confidence, that (1) the stimuli deriving
from one's internal and external environments in the course of living
are structured, predictable and explicable; (2) that the resources are
available to one to meet the demands posed by these stimuli; and (3)
these demands are challenges, worthy of investment and engagement."
The sense of coherence has three components: Comprehensibility,
manageability, meaningfulness.
“According to Antonovsky, the third element is the most important. If
a person believes there is no reason to persist and survive and
confront challenges if they have no sense of meaning, then they will
have no motivation to comprehend and manage events.”
(Lit. source 1). These characteristics of a salutogenetic
orientation are to strengthen people with appropriate methods.
"For example, a headache becomes a hint which offers a chance
to return to the flexible center (of the human).” If, however,
the headache is suppressed by a drug, no signal (indicator/
indication) is given to cure. Figuratively, instead of
fighting the fire, the fire detector was switched off." (Lit.source 2)[440]
Discussion:
+ : No fixation on pathology, resource-oriented.
‒ : As described elsewhere, the creation of a basic trust has
to find within the person himself.
Otherwise as described in the secular
psychotherapies.
Resilience research (resistance-ability) took its starting point in the investigation of trauma victims and their vulnerability. Thereby the following factors were identified that allow adults to process traumas:
-
They deal with stress effectively.
- They have good problem-solving skills.
- Having problems they ask for help.
- They believe there are ways to deal with life problems.
- Their relationships with friends and family members are
tight.
- They talk about the trauma and their feelings with friends
and family .
- They are spiritual/ religious.
- They see themselves as survivors instead of as a "victim".
- They help others.
- They are trying to get something from the trauma.
- They are supported by friends and family.
Discussion: No fixation on pathology, resource-oriented, spiritual-religious resources are taken into account.
Regarding the move away from pure cognitive behavioral
therapy towards integrative and body psychotherapy, I would like to
quote W. Tschacher and M. Storch:
“For years… it
has been observed how the cognitively oriented therapy approaches
are reforming with the inclusion of non-cognitive aspects…
(Dialectical-behavioral therapy: Linehan, 1993, schema therapy:
Young et al., 2005). There are also approaches to a 'general
psychotherapy' that seeks to integrate all proven mechanisms of
action ... (Grawe, 1998). In the “third-wave approach” of
behavioral therapy (Hayes et al., 2004), attitudes and views are
adopted that had been developed in the field of humanistic
psychotherapy schools in a non-academic and research-free manner
since the middle of the 20th century (Kriz, 2007). In addition,
there are elements of the systemic approaches (von Schlippe &
Schweitzer, 1996), which ... led to the contextual or
constructivist perspective in cognitive behavioral therapy
(Mahoney, 2006)." And elsewhere: "The first body
psychotherapeutic schools emerged as a kind of spin-offs within
psychoanalysis from the 1930s onwards by Wilhelm Reich
(vegetotherapy) and later Fritz Perls (gestalt therapy), Jakob
Moreno (psychodrama) and their numerous students and successors."
{Tschacher, W. & Storch, M. (2010) Embodiment und
Körperpsychotherapie.https://www.majastorch.de/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/1106_Embodiment-Koerpertherapie.pdf
In A. Künzler, C. Böttcher, R. Hartmann & M.-H.
Nussbaum (Ed.), Körperzentrierte Psychotherapie im Dialog.
Heidelberg: Springer.]
In many publications on the theory of embodiment
this information is seldom given.
Instead, one speaks of a new wave of cognitive therapy.
I can't help saying that this is probably neither the last nor a new
“wave”. (See quote above).
When Tschacher and Storch go on to say that embodiment is meant
"That the psyche
is always embedded in a body ..." and only against this background
"a complete
theory of psychology becomes possible" - then the question remains open, in which again the
psyche and body are embedded, before one can speak of a
(somewhat) complete psychology. I suspect that by then there will
still be some paradigm shifts in psychology and I predict that with
the next "wave" one will discover that psychology and psychotherapy
also have to consider spiritual and religious issues.
`Table´:
Advantages and disadvantages of anthropocentric
psychotherapies (Keywords)
BT (Behavior Therapies)
|
||
advantages |
disadvantages |
notes |
(on symptom level) more targeted, more detectable and more predictable |
Less causal, too superficial and short-term
effective, too manipulative, too normative, too
other-directed. Some problems are only postponed. Healing more time consuming or overstraining. Danger: Like cortisone: straw fire. Symptom away but disease remains. |
covering method, suitable for mild cases and as a supplementary therapy for severe diseases. |
Analytical methods
|
||
advantages
|
disadvantages
|
notes |
more causal as BT |
Too pessimistic; it lacks spiritual
dimension; the ego is overtaxed, self-salvation;
therapist difficult to question; more complicated, more
elitist. Zimbardo: too unscientific, too speculative; vague concepts, central hypotheses not provable, thus irrefutable; too back-looking. The illness is explained from a negative point of view and positive, healthy aspects too little considered; to one-sided consideration of sexuality and aggression; the male model as norm. |
suitable for moderate cases. |
All secular, purely natural scientific
psychotherapies
|
||
advantages
|
disadvantages
|
notes |
see above |
Only a second-rate human image, demanding
ego-strength, danger of overburdening. ↓ sources of
faith/ spirituality; Thoughts and feelings are seen too much as objects (reification). The objective, measurable, calculable, functional, feasible and the symptom elimination is emphasized; Too one-sidedly, mechanistic perspectives and words. As materialism sterile, cold. ↓ feelings, faith, love, inner world, humanity. Behavior, function more important than life.[442] |
|
Critical remarks: Today, psychiatry tries to explain mental processes
or diseases with brain functions.
For example, I read something about the consequences of a mental
trauma:
"PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder) can be developed
by someone who was confronted with an extreme degree of anxiety,
dying and pain ... The sensory perceptions ... can lead to stimulus
overload. The almond nuclei, ...
are then overburdened."[444]
Does this take us any further? Yes, a bit! But should a
primary psychic process, how I assume it, not be primarily
explained and cured in the psychological field? I fear that
most mental processes and conditions in the future will only
be explained neurobiologically, which, on the one hand,
creates illusionary security but, on the other hand, ignores
the main therapeutic options.
I follow the criticism of Felix Hasler: “Explanation models
from brain research penetrate former territories of the
humanities and the cultural and social sciences far beyond the
boundaries of natural sciences. The brain research of our days
is very confident in proving the non-existence of free will,
in discovering biological markers for criminal behavior or in
finding neuro-molecular causes of anxiety, compulsive disorder
and depression. Not today but in the foreseeable future, such
big-caliber problems are to be solved. ... The fundamentally
false impression is made that brain research is well aware of
the biological processes underlying our experience, thinking
and action. And therefore medicine should be able to intervene
in the brain in an `evidence-based´ and goal-oriented way if
something goes wrong. For example in the case of a mental
disorder. A dramatic shift towards biology has long taken
place in the classical `bio-psycho-social model of mental
illnesses´. The most striking feature of this
scientific-ideological orientation is the increasingly
out-of-control practice of prescribing
psycho-pharmaceuticals."[445]
Heinzpeter Hempelmann argues similarly: "Neurosciences allow -
finally - precise statements about human thinking. They must,
however, not forget or even withhold that their - hopefully
lasting - success is based on a decisive reduction of their
thirst for knowledge. Obviously, they do not ask
philosophically. ... This perspective is very limited. It
looks at the human as a brain, more precisely: as a nervous
system. And it examines this nervous system from the point of
view, what can be chemically and electrophysiologically
represented by different potentials. It does not ask about the
essence of thought, the essence of man as a thinking being,
the essence of mind, the sensations, the consciousness. It
does not even claim to be able to answer these questions as
science - I speak ideal-typically here! - for this is the task
of philosophy ... This limited perspective leads - while
paying the price of a reduction of the initial question - to
very precise and quantitative results with claims to high
scientific validity. Neuroscientists can give us very precise
information about, which electrical potentials are shown in
certain regions of the brain due to certain signal stimuli but
they cannot tell us what the man´s essence/nature is".[446].
Since the access to a spiritual-psychical influence is much
easier and probably ultimately even more effective and
incidentally also cheaper, I think that corresponding
psychotherapy should be prioritized.
I believe that most of the causes of mental illnesses, which
are found in the neurobiological field, are second-rate causes
- which, in turn, are results of primary (in my opinion
psycho-spiritual) causes. This opinion is also supported by
the possibility of brain- and even gene changes due to stress
and traumatization! [447] Also, the
recent recognition of epigenetics stating, that different
genes can be activated or deactivated by certain
circumstances,[448]
relativizes a one-sided emphasis on organic-biological
influences. [449]
See corresponding literature to the criticism of the `Human
Brain Project' which aims to capture neural networks of the
brain by computers and is supported by the EU with 1 billion
€ ! (similar in the USA).[450]
I quote M. Richard and H. Freund, who present
this topic from today's point of view:[451]
"Academic psychology … has always been understood as a secular
science. In its rapid development in the twentieth century, it
increasingly occupied interpretations and fields of action,
which until then had been reserved for theology and
ecclesiastical institutions. Up until the 1980s the clinical
psychology primarily investigated the negative effects of
religion and it was only later when it highlighted
health-promoting aspects, too ... A
few years later C. G. Jung (1940) argued that almost all
psychical problems have a religious dimension and that
religion should therefore be constructively integrated into
psychotherapy. Other pioneers of psychotherapy such as Viktor
Frankl and Carl Rogers also recognized the existential value
of religion in the field of crisis management (Demling, 2004).
Newer psychoanalytic authors discuss that it is significant
for mental health to be able to believe something (Britton,
1998). The renaissance of religious/ spiritual concepts from
the context of buddhism and Far Eastern religions has recently
been observed in behavioral therapy ... In summary, it can be
seen that the image of the psychotherapist initially drawn as
religious-critical or indifferent does not coincide with the
empirical findings in Germany ... It is time to overcome
the previous shadow existence of this topic in the
scientific-therapy-discussion and turn to it more and more
...[452] Existing approaches such as the buddhist
psychotherapy (Ennenbach, 2010), the transpersonal behavioral
therapy (Piron, 2007) or the concept of the 'IGNIS Academy for
Christian Psychology' (Halder, 2011) are leading a
shadow-existence ...” [453] Although
many psychotherapists protested against the existing
directives in the 'Bonn Declaration' already in 2006, little
has changed in Germany. However, there are more and more
authors like M. Seitlinger, D. Heil, P. Schellenbaum, E.
Frick, J. Kornfield, H. Jellouschek, J. Armbruster, M. Utsch,
E. Frick and others in recent German literature who recommend
the consideration of spirituality in psychotherapy.[454]
I have already mentioned Viktor Frankl's
Logotherapy. Frankl, Caruso and Daim form the so-called third
Viennese school of psychotherapy. Of these, Wilfried Daim
has a religiously based approach.[455]
Theoretically, he is very close to me because, like me, he
places the Absolute, which he identifies as God, at the center
of his considerations. However, there are some differences in
our concepts but it is not the place to address them here.
Daim sees himself as a psychoanalyst who, in a certain sense,
belongs to S. Freud but also, in contrast to him, on crucial
points. Dieter Wyss describes this contrast. He means,
according to Daim and Caruso, the spirit is displaced by the
drives, whereas according to Freud the drives are
displaced by the spirit and thereby the neurosis develops.
With this reversal of the original approach of psychoanalysis,
however, according to Wyss, the problem of the relation
between spirit and drive is not resolved. Wyss continues: Both
is possible - drive can be displaced by spirit and spirit can
be displaced by drive.[456]
To stay with this choice of words: I see the emergence of the
"neurosis" above all in the suppression of the absolutely
positive spirit by absolutized Relatives who act as "strange
Absolutes" (sA), which can be of more spiritual or impulsive
or otherwise nature.
Ps. Wyss misinterprets Daim's religious perspective as a moral
position.
An
overview is given by the following quotations: "The
transpersonal psychology and the transpersonal psychotherapy,
which is based on the first, expand the classical psychology
and psychotherapy by philosophical, religious and spiritual
aspects … Transpersonal psychology examines consciousness
states 'beyond' (trans) of personal experience ... The main
founders and theorists of transpersonal psychology were
Stanislav Grof, Anthony Sutich, Frances Vaughan, Roger Walsh,
Abraham Maslow, Ronald D. Laing, Charles Tart, Roberto
Assagioli and Ken Wilber." (Lit. source 1). "Issues
considered in transpersonal psychology include spiritual
self-development, self beyond the ego, peak experiences,
mystical experiences, systemic trance, spiritual crises,
spiritual evolution, religious conversion, altered states of
consciousness, spiritual practices, and other sublime and/or
unusually expanded experiences of living. The discipline
attempts to describe and integrate spiritual experience within
modern psychological theory and to formulate new theory to
encompass such experience." (Lit. source 2)[457]
Discussion: Transpersonal
psychology's essential criticism about university psychology:
Western science does not recognize the transrational and
transpersonal areas as real, existential, spiritual levels of
consciousness, and therefore must press all the spiritual
experiences through the bottleneck of monistic materialism. [458]
The "transpersonal" theories expand the theories of university
psychology around spiritual-religious aspects, which, however,
mainly have buddhist and Hindu backgrounds.
See discussion about Buddhism
in the part `Metapsychotherapy'.
The word
'pastoral' is difficult for a layman. It means (Catholic)
pastoral care. "Pastoral psychology reflects religious and
ecclesiastical practices from a psychological point of view in
order to gain new perspectives and extended possibilities for
action. It examines human and social sciences theory and
practice from the theological perspective as concerns their
anthropological premises. It promotes dialogue between
theology and human or social sciences." [459]
"It works interdisciplinarily and
multiperspectively. Insights from theology, psychology and
sociology are interlinked and made fruitful for church
practice." [460]
Pastoral psychology is meant to be
theology and psychology.
Criticism: It is certainly
fruitful when theology and psychology work together. In
reality, however, theology rather subordinates itself to the
university psychology as regards psychological questions and
does not discuss pathological phenomena, whereas on the
other hand, religious questions are largely negated by the
mainstream of today's psychology.
"Pastoral psychiatry is concerned with pastoral
care in the context of psychiatry. Many things between
'spiritual healing' and 'psychiatry for theologians' have
already been referred to by the term 'pastoral psychiatry'. In
1973 a professorship for the subject was established at the
Ruhr-University Bochum in Germany, which was occupied by the
theologian Thomas Bonhoeffer until 1996." [461]
• I am not aware of any study about the backgrounds and
therapy of mental illnesses having been published here.
"Pastoral action is not to be confused with
psychotherapeutic action. However, psychotherapeutic methods
are also used in pastoral care. In particular the pastoral
psychology influenced by Carl Rogers and the Dutch pastoral
care movement in Germany lays emphasis on a close exchange
between pastoral care and psychology ... In the middle of the
1960s the pastoral movement came from the Netherlands to
Germany and led to the development of pastoral psychology ...
In the 1980s Eugen Drewermann ... developed his depth
psychological interpretation of the bible, especially in the
three-volume work `Psychoanalyse und Moraltheologie´. At the
same time, Michael Dieterich developed biblical therapeutic
pastoral care, which spread rapidly particularly in the
pietistic and free church groups ... All fields of activity
[of pastoral care] have the task to accompany people in
matters of life and faith. This happens in a personal
conversation, depeding on the situation, as well as through
prayer, consoling and encouraging words from the bible,
through blessings (e.g. laying on hands) but also through
social support ... In biblical therapeutic pastoral care
(BTPC), for example, biblical and psychological or
psychotherapeutic approaches are complementary or permeate
each other." [462]
Samuel Pfeifer and his Academy for
Psychotherapy and Pastoral Care also work on pastoral care and
psychotherapy/ psychiatry. Helmut Jaschke's "Christian
oriented psychotherapy" and "Hagiotherapie" by Tomislav
Ivancic have similar intentions.
• Short
remarks:
- The concept of biblical
therapeutic pastoral care seems to be too dogmatic to me in
some points.
- Samuel Pfeifer separates the
modern psychiatry too strictly from biblical pastoral care in
his book "Die Schwachen tragen".
It
assumes, like me, that man owns somatic, psychological, and
spiritual areas that are connected and thus offer different
possibilities of therapeutic approaches.
• Regarding the pathogenesis of
mental disorders, I see great differences but only a few as
concerns their healing.
[The citations are here from www.aa.org and http://www.cleanandsobernotdead.com/Pages/promises.html ]
Our patients also find spirituality, away from the official
psychotherapeutic mainstream, in the following
non-professional and very successful anonymous self-help
groups such as:
Anonymous Alcoholics (AA), Workaholics Anonymous (WA),
Relatives and friends of alcoholics (AL-Anon), Children of
alcoholics (Alateen), Drugs / Narcotics Anonymous (NA),
Anonymous Messis (AM), Sexaholics Anonymous (SA), Borderline
Anonymous (BA), Co-Dependents Anonymous (CoDA), Emotions
Anonymous (EA), Anonymous eating disorders (sA and OA),
Gamblers Anonymous (GA), family members (Gam-Anon), and
Internet and Technology Addicts Anonymous (ITAA). [463]
The anonymous groups are not a religious
organization and do not recommend a specific belief system. At
the center, however, is the trust in a 'loving, higher power',
the attempt to "trust our God's care as we understand it."
They teach fundamental spiritual principles such as faith,
trust, honesty, openness, willingness and humility.
The following are the original twelve steps as published by
Alcoholics Anonymous and adopted by the other anonymous
groups:
In
parallel, there are `12 promises' for a new, better, more
relaxed life (without addiction).
It also says: We realize that God is
doing for us what we could not do for ourselves.
- These "anonymouses" do not care for the ideological
border between official psychotherapy and pastoral care but simply
take what they need.
- In contrast to academic
psychotherapies, the last instance in these people's life is not man
but "a higher, loving power/ God, as everyone understands him", so a
serenity can grow that knows "that with us in the world and in the
hereafter everything will go well when we turn to him."
- The concepts of these self-help groups are very close to me and
are very similar to what I mean by 'primary psychotherapy'.
- The concept is particularly suitable for people
who are psychically 'at the very bottom' and cannot get on
with their own strength or with the assistance of others. Therefore,
I also believe that it is well suited for people with (not acute)
psychoses.
Psychology, psychotherapy and
psychiatry should, in my view, be both scientifically and
spiritually religiously based. It is a questionable science if it is
to replace religion, when it transforms the lively into a thing only
to measure and reproduce it. Religion is questionable when it
believes in having to replace or even to fight good science, or when
it does not serve man.
Psychologists and psychiatrists are now almost exclusively regarded
as scientists. The published literature must be brand new, knowledge
of past years or even centuries seem to be obsolete.
The knowledge of philosophers or even theologians (people who are
very intensely concerned with our soul life) is hard to find.
Hardly any wise man of past ages gets his or her say. The fact that
for billions of people religion is of existential importance is
largely ignored. The great human issues such as being and
non-existence, life and death, good and evil, love and hatred,
meaning and meaninglessness, guilt and innocence, trust and
distrust, life-worthy or not, self-worth and unworthiness, power and
powerlessness and so on are hardly taken into account - issues,
which are experienced in all mental crises and particularly
intensely in delusion.
Technocrats threaten to drive out our free and therefore holy spirit
from various positions. They come with a large device, measuring
instruments, nuclear spin and computer tomographs like to a battle
from one side: They measure, register, evaluate, operationalize,
verify and amplify single- and doubleblindly - and so evidently they
are particularly clairvoyant or particularly blind?
All of them want to subdue the spirit and create a new, perfect and
transparent human being: reproducible by cloning, streamlined,
functional and usable everywhere. Ultimately, a blood-empty monster
emerges but that the more you want to get hold of it the less spirit
it will have. Giant computers are at the end of the development of
such purely scientifically oriented psychotherapies, which record
the patient's thousands of data and then present the most
objectively and best solution, where perhaps a simple hug or a
loving conversation would have been the better and simpler solution.
In particular, behavioral therapists sometimes appear to me as
technicians with very sophisticated, by all means, humane and loving
programs. They then resemble a lover who has studied everything that
science has found out about love and precisely but for this reason
does not know what love really is. We are thus in danger of forcing
the lively into scientific theories and programs. These attempts
have already failed elsewhere. For example with planned economies.
And they will continue to fail - whenever one tries to adapt life,
so also the human, to certain theories
and not vice versa.The moment our souls
transformed for psychologists and psychiatrists to subjects of
scientific research they lost their innocence, their gloss, their
wonder and their depths. We poke around in the self and hope to find
a treasure, in doing so we destroy the whole thing, as we destroy a
blossom if we believe that we would unriddle its miracle by putting
it under a microscope.
But some others take equally one-sided opposite
positions in trying to fill the spirit with pure speculations
(esotericism, in parts also the 'antipsychiatry'). But it, the free,
holy spirit, will blow where it wants and not where they will try to
compel it. It will remain free and divine - not measurable, not to
be grasped, not to be taken in - and yet loving and stronger
experienceable than anything else, just like real life and love.
I quote B. Grom examplarily. [465]
“... according to English-language studies, it can be proved
that convinced religiosity and positive religious coping can
exert a buffering effect, particularly in the case of heavy
stress, and can somewhat reduce depression, anxiety and
life-dissatisfaction ... According to an Allensbach survey
(2006), a remarkable 42 percent of the Germans say that they
'personally derive consolation and strength from their faith'
... more than a dozen relevant investigations ... prove that
religious belief... maintain life satisfaction and reduce
depression and anxiety ... “.[466]
Discussion: There is
obviously a current tendency of traditional psychotherapy to
open up for spiritual and religious questions and to give them
at least a "limited influence".
On the other hand, spiritual and religious worldviews differ
from each other partly considerably, so that one should assess
them more differentiated in terms of their psychotherapeutic
potency than it has been done so far. Moreover, the question
remains to what extent traditional psychotherapies are
prepared to scrutinize their own materialistic views with
their possible "side effects".
As the previous sections have shown, religiosity
has been an integral part of psychotherapy in the original
sense until modern times. It was only with the enlightenment
and the successes of the natural sciences that the
predominantly materialistic psychologies and psychotherapies
emerged, which because of their predominantly materialistic
basis, regarded spiritual and religious issues as irrelevant.
As mentioned several times, this has led to a one-sidedness
and weakening of psychotherapy. It is only in recent decades
that a shift towards a paradigm that encompasses both secular
and religious views seems to be emerging. This path will be
difficult since both sides have entrenched themselves in their
spheres about the last 100 years. On the one hand, official
pastoral statements warn of psychiatric activity, on the other
hand, the psychotherapists have great reservations about
spiritual-religious influences and both sides are rightly
careful because the knowledge of the other sphere is usually
missing. In addition, there are still organizational and human
reasons, both in the field of science and in the
ecclesiastical sphere, which make a rethinking or even a
renouncement of this or that advantage more difficult.[467] The fear of becoming unscientific has also meant
that in psychology and psychiatry, anything that is
unprovable and unimaginable is usually masked out. Thus U.
Sachse states for example in his otherwise excellent book
"Traumazentrierte Psychotherapie" that on the one hand our
inner world of values is important when dealing with
psychical trauma:[468]
"If we have a
philosophical, spiritual and/ or religious system in which
injustice, fate, bad luck, arbitrariness occur ... then it is
much easier for us to integrate a trauma … ." (p. 55)
But, on the other hand, this matter hardly plays a role in his
book when discussing therapy strategies. After all, in a
psychotherapist journal, one reads the cautious words: "Should
psychotherapists make their patients' religious beliefs the
starting point for interventions? Can a psychotherapist
incorporate his/ her own religiosity into therapy? ... We hope
our daring (!) to take up this topic will be rewarded." [469]
Commentary:
1. Established psychotherapy is based on philosophical
foundations, which ultimately can only be believed like
religions.
2. It is characteristic that "daring" is necessary to ask
basic questions to established psychotherapy today.
3. Just as theologians are trained in psychology,
psychologists and psychiatrists should also be made aware of
the most important religions and spiritual currents during
their training.
- Pastors/ theologians
usually have too little knowledge of psychology and psychiatry.
- Then there is a justified fear of acting incompetently and
being sued.
- Some pastors/ theologians are institutionally and
theoretically too firmly established to dare to innovate.
- Some pastors/ theologians have difficulties in understanding
the role of God in relation to diseases. Some, rather members of
free churches, overestimate God's direct intervention, others,
the majority, may still believe in God's helping with diseases
in some way but do not act like it.
- Church has long presented illnesses as a direct result of the
patient's sins.[470] Although
theology has a more differentiated point of view on that
matter nowadays, many people still regard the Gospel primarily
as a moral doctrine and therefore refrain from such pastoral
teachings.[471]
Personally
My
personal experience: I like to hear the good news that I am
absolutely lovable, unique and godlike when I am down. But if
I did a great job, I don´t like the Gospel, since, without
it, I feel more valuable and better than any bum, who
evidently only loiters about all day. Then I want to be more
lovable than the bum and also feel better. But man's magical
hours are those when he gives up his resistance to +A/ God,
who gives the bum the same worth like me. These are the
situations where we are in tears in real life or in the
cinema.
I believe that every person has religious or spiritual basic
needs. We all have the longing for absoluteness, redemption,
eternity and immortality. But we satisfy them in different
ways - that is human nature. I understand when a football team
is assured immortality at a world championship or millions of
people find joy and fellowship with those games. But how
quickly this "immortality" disappears and yesterday's heroes
are forgotten. I am only able to remember a few international
footballers from about 20 years ago, although I admired them
then. We should preserve ourselves this joy of human success
but why should not we extend our longings and anchor them more
sustainable and more deeply? We encounter resistance here in
us, whose deeper cause will be probably that we get an
existential fear when we cannot hold the reins and are to hand
them over to someone else, even if this someone is God.
(S. chapter Resistance).
Also: The good news often seems
ambiguous. Its positive part is that we are always entitled to
freedom, dignity and well-being, regardless of whether having
done something right or wrong. Its negative part is: no matter
how much we do right, our right to freedom, dignity and
well-being is not thereby increased. But by trying to increase
our Self by means of achievements, we establish an invisible
strange Absolute, which we are also fixed to in the event of
our failure and which makes us than small. Thus false pride
and destructive inferiority complexes appear as two sides of
one thing.
"Love
grants in one moment what effort hardly achieved in a long
time."
Goethe (Torquato Tasso)
Love is stronger than death! (~ Solomon 8,6)
Dedicated to my granddaughter Teresa.
Note: For technical reasons, the order in this chapter is different
than in the PDF versions but the content is basically the same.
[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
`Primary psychotherapy´ is
supposed to be a therapy without preconditions because it should
be usable and implementable by even the simplest and most sick
persons. It is undogmatical and free from ideology.
Such
therapy requires no analysis, no behavioral training, no
special knowledge.
It is not a total therapy, but a fundamental
psychotherapy. (→ fundamental.)
Problems can be on different levels. Only one
fundamental level covers all problems. Superficial levels,
on the other hand, exclude deeper problems and their
solutions from the outset. This is especially true of
current materialistically based psychotherapies. Just as I have described the very first and
deepest causes of mental illness primarily in the confusions
of fundamental meanings, I now see the strongest therapeutic
and most comprehensive power in a psychotherapy that starts
in the absolute realm. It takes into account not only man's
need for an absolute, but also the fact that every man has
access to this source / to this Absolute.
The main thing would be that the most important things are
to be given by God¹. It first establishes the most important
thing: an unassailable, positive Self - the absolute and
existential basis of the person, on which then further
therapeutic procedures can take place as required. The
main thing would be that the most important things are given by
God¹. It first establishes the most important
thing: an unassailable, positive Self - the absolute and
existential basis of the person, on which then further
therapeutic procedures can take place as required. "Primary Psychotherapy" integrates all positive
psychotherapies.
It does not replace other psychotherapeutic
procedures. However, it is a basis for further
psychotherapeutic interventions. It can be compared to an
unconditional love of parents for their children, which is
an optimal basis for any concrete behavior of parents. In
other words, even the best pedagogy without love is worth
less than love without pedagogy.
Only God's promise to love people always and unconditionally
completely coincides with our desire to be loved for our own
sake.
Belief in God and his love, however, does not
guarantee a carefree and healthy life as the love of parents
for their child this guarantees. However, the likelihood that
the believer, as well as the beloved child, leads a fuller and
healthier life seems much greater than that of a life without
love. Because the best, most sustainable and yet free therapy
(by the way, also power means) is love. This is an old
experience that is always rediscovered and formulated.
Psychoanalysts also dealt with this issue
albeit using other terms. So they investigated whether and how
a child tolerates the withdrawal of a love object which
corresponds to a +sA. The dearest mother will have to withdraw
the infant of her breast (being referred to by Melanie Klein
as the most important object of love) from time to time. There
is no disturbance, despite the withdrawal of the mother's
breast or similar frustrations, if the child feels the
mother's attitude of unconditional love, i.e. that this love
works as an Absolute and relativizes the above-mentioned
frustrations.
This also applies to the +A-effects on all other love or hate
objects. The child (or any other person) can cushion the
frustrations not only by subordinating them to this love but
also by supposing that - seen in a broader perspective - it
will benefit from these failures, though they are connected
with negative feelings at first. Basically, the person starts
early not to understand pleasure or displeasure in an absolute
meaning and will be much more prepared for later life.
Similar Kohut: "There is a lifelong need to be mirrored by
so-called empathic self-objects. The failure of this empathic
reflection process is due to numerous pathological phenomena."[472]
In short, we all need love. But where from should the person
(P) get love when the environment is unloving and the person
doesn't love himself? From God? But even with God not all
problems are gone - but they are at least relativized. After
all, if the absolute felt problem is solved by choosing +A/God, then all the others are only of relative
importance and then they can be solved much more easily or if
not solved, better tolerated.(→`Absolute
and relative will'). Primary psychotherapy does not begin
with "You should" or even "You must" but with firm promises:
"You are loved and unique," "You may be, whatever you are!"
And then you can try to set these or other goals or solve
problems. Through the assumption of the +A, every strange
Absolute becomes a Relative, the strange Self becomes real
Self and the unredeemed becomes principally (no total)
redeemed - for "God's reconciliation with the world also
allows man's reconciliation with himself, so that, as a
`Christian, he has no longer to be a man of eternal conflict'
(Bonhoeffer), of indissoluble ethical turmoil." [473]
The religious mediated redemption can be understood, according
to Tillich, "as an overcoming of the existential rule of the
negative (fear, guilt, meaninglessness), as a 'salvation of
the person's center' to its existential being." [474]
Alike Hans Küng writes: "He who has not known religion will
never know the great spiritual resources that can be decisive
for a patient's well-being." [475] When even Freud stated in a letter to a priest: "…you are in the fortunate position of
being able to lead them to God and bringing about what
in this one respect was the happy state of earlier times
when religious faith stifled the neuroses. For us this
way of disposing of the matter does not exist. Thus our
patients have to find in humanity what we are unable to
promise them from above and are unable to supply them
with ourselves. Things are therefore much more difficult
for us, and in the resolution of the transference some
of our successes come to grief.” [476] - then the obvious question
comes to mind: Why not also offer this possibility?
It is rather stressful if you have to serve
several or even many gods - as in some religions. This also
applies to the many ideologies or nameless "gods" we carry
within ourselves. It is freedom, having a God who does not
demand for anything. If we let God¹ liberate us from the wrong
demands, many mental illnesses will disappear.
You do not always have to solve the earthly problems
necessarily and certainly not always in an optimal way. The
person has now no longer to revolve around himself alone
existentially - he rests in God. I believe that people who are
mentally very ill, like psychotics, therefore have the
greatest chance of getting well with God. Where from they
should have got the fulfillment of the basic need of
unconditional love, security and so on from, while having
experienced their environment as existentially unreliable or
destructive and thus having lost faith in humanity and in
themselves? It is primarily a matter of strengthening the
personality core, which gives us the image of God (imago Dei)
beyond of good and evil (in the usual meaning of the word),
beyond of right and wrong, beyond of other people's opinions,
one's own deeds and health or illness.
Primary psychotherapy does not fight but leaves free choice.
It primarily supports living. It can allow and integrate the
relative negative and the relative positive, but tries to
influence the Relative. It allows to override and stand above
all the earthly things.
What are the conclusions?
If we take the Absolute into account, we will recognize:
- Health and disease are not everything, so we can remain calm
and not have an existential anxiety if we get sick.
-The Absolute (personal: the Self) has priority and is
already there and does not have to be acquired or elaborated -
that means also that the strongest solution is gratuitous and
easy. Relative problems can be solved only relatively well,
thus not completely.This would also be a more realistic view
and unnecessary disappointments would be avoided.
- Sometimes suffering and disease are unavoidable companions
of positive developments - which should encourage us not to
give up. Instead, we tend to look at ourselves as a failure
and at disease as an enemy.
- From an absolute standpoint "healthy" and "normal" people
can be more sick, abnormal, and more insane than those which
are labeled so from a medical standpoint. [477]
I think, a therapy concept
developed from what has been said so far, will set different
accents than conventional ones. Most of concepts will be similar
as regards questions that lie in the relative range. A great
difference is, however, the consideration of an absolute area of
the person to which all other areas are subordinated. Decisive
therapeutic consequences are the results of it. The main point
is not the person's periphery, such as his behavior or
character, his guilt or innocence, his successes or failures and
so on but his center: his Self, his Absolute. Just like -
from a negative point of view - a person is most likely to be
spiritually destroyed when one destroys his center, so, from a
positive point of view, he is most likely to be healed if one
heals this center. Once the person's Self is healed (and thus
also the aspects of the Self such as the self-esteem,
self-determination, identity), the most resolves itself.
The point is, however, that this "central healing" is not an
elaborate process but ultimately a simple act of faith
(better: "act of will"), which gives back the Self its
original role, namely that of life and existence without any
preconditions.
Why coming to terms with the past so painstakingly if I have
the right to live freely and without any burden anyway? Why so
much effort to become a better human, more mature, wiser,
cleverer, calmer, more analyzed, more knowledgeable, more
respected, more loved, more successful and so on if I am
already good enough for God, and my blessedness does not
depend on these attributes? There must be no +sA to be
reached, no –sA to be repelled and no lack to be "filled",
necessarily - what a relief!
Of course, such therapy is not against analyzes, improvements,
becoming more mature, revisions, successes etc. but against
setting these attributes absolute and against making the
person's center independent from having to achieve them. As
liberating as it is, on the one hand, not to have to be
defined by the above mentioned attributes, it can be difficult
to renounce the 'advantages' of the strange Selves because
they also give us 'hyper-security', 'hyper-stability',
'hyper-self-confidence' and 'hyper-happiness', even if only
temporarily and only for a price, which can also be a disease.
I
see the following main differences to the usual
psychotherapies:
1. In the first place stands with these the 'Ego-strength' and
second place the 'Self-strength'.
In 'primary psychotherapy' it is the other way round: first
comes the 'Self-strength' (religious: the strength of God) and
secondly the 'ego-strength' / the human power.
2. Another important difference to many other psychotherapies
is the fact that health and disease are of relative importance
and that their absolutization leads to undesirable
disadvantages and is even disease promoting in the long run.
While psychotherapies often have the problem of setting
certain therapeutic goals absolute and thereby simultaneously
excluding their opposites, primary psychotherapy also
integrates opposing therapeutic goals. It integrates and
promotes both the Absolute as well as the Relative, both unity
and diversity, both the person's protection and his
sensitivity, the security and at the same time the openness.
It simultaneously promotes life and functioning, the person
and the things, the subjects and the objects. It lets man grow
wings and roots at the same time. Moreover, it strengthens his
ego but also the you. It does not unilaterally promote a
therapeutic goal at the expense of opposing or other goals. It
does not promote the first-rate reality at the expense of
second-rate realities - or in other words, it does not promote
heaven in us at the expense of the world.
Some readers have concluded from my
explanations that it is absolutely necessary to recognize
and remove one's own mis-absolutizations. Whereas in the
past illness or parents or one's own guilt or something else
was the thing to be eliminated, now mis-absolutizations or
the strange Selves are the ones. This is a misunderstanding.
I do not mean that the mis-absolutizations are the evil that
has to be eradicated. They are only Relatives, even if they
are absolutely felt and lived. They are rather unfavorable
but, as I said, not the negative. Yes, as described, they
can function as emergency, substitute solutions if the
person concerned does not dare to live out of a true Self.
They can be the "minor happiness," as B. Hellinger once
called it, albeit in a different context. The 'It' becomes a
small 'it' all by itself by God - it does not have to be
combated and liquidated. As a small 'it' it gets back into
the position it belongs to.
3. Psychotherapy should be able to use all
psychically relevant aspects (→
Summary
table).
I.e. The pPT may (!) Include physical closeness (→
Body Psychotherapy and Embodiment)
or - where appropriate - spiritual or religious
practices (see examples below). Just as love does not exclude
anything that helps, neither does primary psychotherapy exclude any
kind of help.
But:
4. Every patient should receive a very
individual therapy - regardless of all psychotherapy
guidelines.
• I would like to mention the
treatment of therapist Sergeant Choi with mentally ill
soldiers in South Korea. In short: she embraces the
soldiers, caresses their faces, washes their feet, and so
on. She also says: "I share your pain, take care of
yourself, I will not forget you, I will visit you from
time to time. If you need me, call me, keep doing good
work, etc." Most of mothers will behave towards
her sick child as well. Ms. Choi does not explicitly refer to a
particular religion but similar behavior is also reported
by Jesus.
• Therapeutic touch
(TT). (More in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Therapeutic_touch,
2019).
• Professional "cuddle therapies", which
fortunately are increasingly being offered.
• Art therapy, sport and everything else that makes
sense - this also includes what is normally / on average
nonsensical, because that which makes sense is also a relative
category.
•
Meditations (For every day meditation is very good Sarah Young:
“Jesus Calling" See Lit.)
Or see German long version, if applicable), blessing, praying for
the patient (with or without him). (This also includes the problem of so-called exorcism,
which I do not completely reject. This can not be discussed further
in this work.)
Example
case: A 60-year-old patient reports that she has
suffered from the death of her little brother all
her life. She had to look after her little brother
as a ten-year-old girl because her mother had
little time. At that time, she and her girlfriend
were playing with the little brother "doll". They
bathed him in a cold bath, and her brother got a
lung inflammation due to which he died. She knew
not only from previous psychotherapies that her
brother's death was not to blame on her because it
was her mother's responsibility and not hers. On
the other hand she was also aware that she made a
mistake. That is why she is still tormented by
feelings of guilt.
I told her that it was not important before God
whether someone was guilty of 100% or only 1% and
that it was also second-rate, whether it was an
actual or a supposed guilt. (Because who is able
to judge this?) Only God knows in the end. The
size of the guilt being a fact at all or not is
not decisive for him but that the person only
thinks `I´m sorry´. And thereby all guilt is
lifted/ eradicated for him. His grace is always
greater than our guilt. His grace is the real
greatness, and our guilt is "small and low" in
comparison (G. von le Fort). Besides, I believe
her brother is now in heaven and there he is doing
well. And when he sees his sister from there with
her feelings of guilt, I am sure he would advise
her to go on living freely and untroubled.
• Initial
step: The 'primary psychotherapy' integrates the usual
psychotherapies from a Christian or love point of view.
But this partly leads also to other therapeutic priorities.
First: '+
A-based' variety of methods and the
patient's disburdening and supporting by appropriate
attitudes such as the unconditional pledges from God/ love.
(To meditations, see unabridged German version.)
The treatment method should correspond to the respective patient, which
means that one does not give priority to one or another method
independently of the respective patient.
• Further steps:
a)
Examples of 'primary-based behavioral therapy'.
For example, depression: exercises directly
against depression (against depressive thoughts, feelings,
behaviors) - as they are described in detail in the
literature. (That's why I'm not
going to elaborate on that here.) However, I consider
'paradoxical' exercises and meditations even more
important, which can be described as 'pro-depression'
(better: pro-sadness). For example: "Do not
only practice to be strong and more groovy but practice even
more to allow yourself to be weak and practice to cry more
often!" For example stutterer: Do not only practice to speak
correctly but even more to stutter (motto: 'I am allowed to.')
For example, psychosis: Do not just practice to be less crazy
but play sometimes deliberately the madman, etc.
b)
A "primary-based psychoanalysis" focuses on the recognition of
strange Absolutes (sA) - which can be less favorable but
sometimes more favorable - but not on their general
elimination because they are already relativized when we the
positive Absolute brought into play. In addition, the sA
should also be available as emergency solutions. (See also the example in 'Psychiatry'
section 'Obsessive-compulsive disorders'.)
Hint: A superior,
higher-valuated Relative is only comparatively higher![479]
Positive Absolutes are
+A / God/ (love) and people with their `absolute attitude'.
The value hierarchies listed in the table correspond to
primary and second-rate therapy targets.
Absolute: +A / God and the personal absolute attitude |
relatively superior |
relatively subordinate |
bible passages with same meaning |
human | church,
achievements, ideals, human attributes, animals, things |
Jn 4:12 |
|
orientations by
God |
orientations by
humans |
|
|
love |
achievements, mind |
1 Jn
4:19 |
|
to be loved by God |
self-love |
|
|
ghost, soul |
matter,
world, body |
Mt
5:29 Mt
18:8 |
|
subject |
object, thing |
|
|
salvation |
health, well-being |
|
|
salvation |
solutions |
|
|
self-strength |
I-strength |
|
|
child of god
(child-I) |
being grown-up
(adult-I) |
|
|
safety |
autonomy |
|
|
reconciliation;
mercy |
right, victim |
Mt
5:24 Mk 12:33 |
|
heaven |
earthly things,
"reality adjustment" |
Mt
6:33 |
|
simply being,
being yourself |
maturation,
individuation |
|
|
substance |
shape |
Mt
23:26 |
|
inner things, inner satisfaction |
external things, external
satisfaction |
|
|
elimination of
causes, causal treatment (therapy) |
symptom relief, symptomatic
therapy |
|
|
trust, faith |
reason, ratio,
achievements |
Mt
6:26 Lk 12:7 |
|
Maria |
Martha |
Lk
10:42 |
|
heavenly receiving |
earthly giving or
taking |
Acts
20:35 |
|
be justified
before God |
self-correction
> correction of others, first take the plank out of your own eye |
Mt 7:5 |
|
earthly life |
to function |
|
|
sinner who regrets |
complacent
righteous |
|
|
light |
darkness |
Jn
3:19 |
|
freedom |
obedience,
responsibility |
1 Tm
1:4 |
|
better a tent on
solid ground |
than a castle
built on sand |
|
|
statements about
Jesus |
prophets, Paul |
|
|
New Testament |
Old Testament |
|
In my
opinion a person has already reached the highest goal of
therapy or life if he has a positive basic attitude to the
positive Absolute (or whatever he believes it to be). This
could also be called "primary virtue" or "Positive primary will" or positive `
Absolute attitude'.
(I have already mentioned it several times.)
Very simply said: If he is one with principle goodwill, he has
already arrived at the most important thing (for me), which I
call +A /God /his Self. He does not have to go anywhere else,
he has already reached the goal. He does not have to become
another person, he does not have to do anything etc. - he can
be however he is.
I consider all other goals to be relatively significant (by no
means insignificant!). They are normally relatively good
("secondary virtues"). But because of their relativity, the
relative good can sometimes be relatively bad. It can be
useful to advise the patient in some individual cases (!) that
he should keep his dependency or even reinforce it, rather
regress than making progress, rather evil than good, rather
aggressive than peaceful, etc. for if he has to be peaceful,
for example, he will, according to the "law of emergence of
the contrary", produce in himself or other people
aggressiveness, which, I believe, is even stronger than the
normal, "relative" aggression.
Here only keywords in reference to meditation 'orientation and freedom'. [480]
Therapist and patient should try
- to be authentic but they may also play a role.
- to accept and love each other but they may also hate
themselves and the others.
- not to demand anything of themselves or the others (not a
must) but they may also demand.
- to understand the other but they may also misunderstand him,
- to recognize and respect their limits and of other people,
but they can also exceed them.
- to be open but they may also close down.
- to solve the problems but they may leave them unresolved or
even enlarge them.
- to have success in therapy but they may also fail.
- to tell the truth but they may also lie.
- to be strong, clever and wise but they may also be weak,
stupid and immature.
- to be grown up but they may also be a child, even childlike.
- involve God or spirituality but they may also exclude them
etc.
Note:
The first is usually the most favorable but rarely the
unfavorable, too. But even if it is the most favorable, it
becomes more unfavorable when it becomes a must.
Emergency solutions are usually second
rate solutions based on strange Absolutes.
They are less favorable and more expensive than the actual solutions. Synonyms
for emergency solutions: replacement-, compromise-, pretense-,
partial solution - frequently a solution at your own expense.
Any defense-mechanism and any second-rate behavior
may serve as an emergency solution.
I will cover only a few important ones in the following due to lack
of space.
The lazy people are slaughtered - the world
becomes diligent.
The ugly people are slaughtered - the world becomes
beautiful.
The fools are slaughtered - the world becomes wise.
The sick are slaughtered, the world becomes healthy.
The old people are slaughtered - the world becomes young.
The saddened are slaughtered - the world becomes fun.
The enemies are slaughtered - the world becomes friendly.
The bad guys are slaughtered - the world becomes good.
( Erich Fried: `Die Maßnahmen´) [481]
Symptoms
are nowadays too quickly suppressed and fought. Psychical
symptoms, however, often have a function. If one
removes the symptom then its function, too!
However, if the person needs the symptom or its function for
mental stabilization or the like, another problem arises that
would not have to occur.
The symptom is gone - everything seems fine but the underlying
problem remains unresolved. Its solution will be moved. A
superficial treatment, however, has its price: Once taken
drugs are then given permanently. A drug normalizes the blood
pressure, another eliminates anxiety or restores the mood,
etc. - everyone is satisfied: the patient, the doctor, and the
pharmaceutical companies.
R. D.
Laing clearly expressed this danger: "Psychiatry can so easily
be a technique of brainwashing, of inducing behavior that is
adjusted by (preferably) non-injurious torture. In the best
places, where straitjackets are abolished, doors are unlocked,
leucotomies largely forgone, these can be replaced by more
subtle lobotomies and tranquilizers that place the bars of
Bedlam and locked doors inside the patient."[482] Similarly, a patient expressed: "The doctor has
given his job to the drugs, which earn him the money. And
because it's a lot of money, more than you can imagine, it
also has the doctor under control. The medical system as an
offshoot of a drug industry grows inexorably. Then the doctor
just thinks the drugs are doing the work for him. Seen in
larger contexts, he then only makes the work for an industry
that wants nothing more to do with the sick - on the contrary,
the sicker, the more turnover ...[483] Fighting
the symptoms has the same basic idea as drug addiction has ...
The pills help the patient to get over his sorrow. The patient
becomes relaxed, so he can regulate himself. The consumer is
not able to realize that the pill is superfluous but it does
not strengthen the personal center where this happens, it
weakens it!"[484]
This does not exclude the attempt to mitigate the consequences
or "repair" them if necessary. Emergency solutions are however
for emergency cases and not for usual ones. They are almost
always more expensive than proper solutions. The struggle
against the negative is typically symptomatic. It is common
practice to fight against illness and suffering. Now, diseases
are consequences of causes and you should "fight" against the
causes and not against the symptoms. Therefore I advise to try
to accept the symptom, to go with it, possibly even to
exaggerate or to create it deliberately.[485]
Keywords and comparisons:
There is little sense complaining about one's sore feet if
one does not remove the too tight shoes.
There is little sense complaining about one's impotence if one
does not solve one's conflicts with one's wife.
There is little sense complaining
about one's overweight when one is not willing to eat less.
There is little sense complaining about one's depression when
one keeps submitting.
There is little sense asking God
to remove the symptoms if one does not remove the causes. [486]
One kills the bearer of bad news
but not their offenders.
You
keep a crutch, although you do not need it anymore.
You run against the wall but instead of
taking a break, we wear helmets and go on, etc.
People preferring this emergency solution pass their problems on to others and thus do not become ill. Or they fight in other people what they hate about themselves. (→ Anticathexis). That is why they do not need a psychiatrist. They tend to selfishness and to push through their interests aggressively. Dynamics and behavior essentially correspond to what I wrote in "Personal as It". They usually also pay a high price for it (f. e. solitude, lack of love, dull or substitute feelings, etc.) - but that does not interest us at the moment. The real, "healthy" Self does not need to take anything away from others. It has enough.
I play dead to survive. (A patient)
This
is the most important emergency solution for our questions. It is
solving the problem by disease at own expense. Normally, the person
(P) in question has already lived from the "substance", for a long
time without being aware of it because the affected is stimulated by a
hyper-wellness condition produced by +sA and does not notice when
living from the substance! If this behavior is not sufficient to
remain stable, the concerned becomes manifestly ill. The further
mechanism of the emergency solution via illness is the following:
Since the person concerned has no other solution, the unconscious
helps itself - it "makes" the man ill.
How does this happen? The initial situation was that the person
concerned is no longer able to meet the requirements, which in most
cases come from the parents, and does not see or dare another way at
the same time. He is overburdened and gets sick in his need. Although
not removing the requirements, he protects himself from further
excessive demands and alienations and creates an unconscious (!)
alibi, which saves his ego from the ruin. He "sacrifices" a part of
his ego (health) in order to maintain this protection.
(See also `Sacrificial dynamic´).
Note the double character of this solution: On the one hand, the
above-mentioned fundamental conflict between the dominant strange
Absolutes and the Self is partially solved or at least weakened; but
on the other hand, the person pays a high price (illness) for it. Thus
psychogenic diseases have important functions (!), without which their
penetrance and persistence cannot be understood.[512]
The ill can thereby mitigate the indispensable demands and gain
certain stability, security and protection. He thus weakens the
tyrannizing ideals* and taboos* but also himself. It is a hard and
self-destructive solution but it works. The (partial) sacrifice of the
Self is the logical consequence of putting a strange above the actual
Self. The inner formula is: “I really absolutely would have to meet
the requirements but because I'm sick, I can't do it.” The person in
question does not dare to say: “I don't want this! I want what I
want!” (In my opinion even better and easier: “I want what God wants
because God wants the best for me and has a better overall view of my
life.")
The person concerned makes also indirectly
via the illness what he does not dare to make
directly.
It can also be said: The person concerned has faced
a life, mostly in his childhood, that seemed to be
too dangerous, hostile or overstraining. In order to
escape this, a kind of instinctual
playing-dead-mechanism occurs, which can look
differently and ranges from mild to severe mental
illnesses, such as autism and psychosis. In order
not to die the `big death´, the death of that what
one considers to be the Self one dies the `small
death´ - one becomes ill. The psychical illness
seems thus the lesser of the two evils because the
loss of the strange Self, which he regards as his
own Self, appears to be the bigger one. From his
subjective point of view he is not wrong. He has
never known his own Self, how can he then believe
that it is indestructible. So he rather dies a bit
to survive at all. Since one cannot live (or dares
not to), one only survives, vegetates or only
functions. “Better ill than ... (useless,
unsuccessful, evil, etc.)” is the unconscious,
deeply internalized motto. The very thing which one
does not want to sacrifice differs from person to
person. It can be every absolutized relative
(earthly) thing. Thanks to the disease the person
remains in mental balance: If the punishment by the
strange Absolute is followed by the patient's
atonement (here in the form of illness), then
everything seems to be well again and the person
feels better. However, if the person dares to defy
the sA demands, P feels out of balance, guilty and
bad or may become even sicker. We are thus faced
with the paradoxical situation to feel safe and
"well" in the old family processes, even if they
make us sick, whereas the liberating way can
initially trigger negative emotions and symptoms (!)[513]
This illustration shows another emergency solution at your own expense.
The left icon image shows a
protected Self that is sensitive to
the outside world, too.
The right icon image shows a weak, vulnerable self that protects
itself by having to seal itself off to the outside world, thereby
paying a high price (e.g., autism).
I'm scared to live my life. I am even more afraid of
dying my death.
So I live
another life and die a foreign death.
•
We have assumed that an inhibited, unfree Self can go several
ways to save itself from total destruction. In addition to the
two previously mentioned emergency solutions, the possibility
of defining one's Self by other persons, things or ideas, like
one did in one's childhood by one's parents, represents a
third one. Again the person identifies himself not with his
very own Self/ Absolute - usually unconsciously, the old
strange Self/ Absolute is replaced by one or more new strange
Selves/ Absolutes.
• But like with drug addicts, the person can also take to the
old sA again - but then he must usually increase the `dose'.
Which are these absolutizations?
The unredeemed Self continues to
wander restlessly. It has not found an inner home, inner peace,
sufficient support, affirmation and freedom neither in its parents
nor in its partners or other persons - that is it has not found
itself.
The Self, which interests us above all at this point and which
became ill, does not tend to solve its problems egoistically. It
may, however, temporarily stabilize in other ways, perhaps the
most common of all emergency situations, namely to seek the
meaning of life in relative things or ideas. Again, there are many
combinations with other solutions. We have all been there: binding
our heart to all sorts of things of this world, hoping this time
we would finally be happy now and forever. And everyone
probably knows the disappointment when the finally achieved
neither satisfies nor brings inner peace and happiness. We depend
on whether we get or achieve one or another. Then owning or
success determines our being. We should not be surprised of
lacking self-esteem when humiliating ourselves this way and
regarding possessions, success, work or anything higher than our
Self. But we were not given any other means and do not see any
other way. So we pile our money or something else up instead of
living. I have never met a millionaire who kept his word, that as
soon as he had a million he would just enjoy his life. No, he got
even more hungry for the next million and then the one after that.
He and we "expand" and we expand the more the emptier our Selves
are. An invention of the devil, as they said - a vicious circle
because the more one stuffs things into the Self, the poorer it
gets.
That is particularly the case when
people believe that some ideology could replace their Self. It
is just under a different name and in some ways the most
sophisticated of all. I admit, dear reader, now I am having some
difficulties to prove the dubiousness of different ideologies is
more difficult than the millions just mentioned. I do not think
that money or certain worldviews are bad in general. But all
things and all ideas should serve man, not the other way around.
That means that man should not be dependent on them. This
violates his true dignity, diminishes his freedom and makes him
sick.
All worldviews, as well as all psychotherapies, should, before
being internalized, be checked to see if they uphold and promote
freedom, worth and dignity, uniqueness and self-determination of
the human beings, which means nothing else than, whether the
Self can be itself or not. One key criterion for me would be the
answer to the question whether man is accept and feel
comfortable without preconditions in these ideologies or whether
such preconditions exist, even if hidden (!). The motto
underlying these cases is: "Only when you have done or become
this or that, you have got worth and dignity." Quasi in
parentheses, one may add: "and as you do not fulfill that, then
you cannot claim that for you.”
Unfortunately, there are some snags
incorporated in most of the worldviews and some religions. They
are not altogether bad, no - but they often give in the most
important, existential question, no, a wrong or only an
ambiguous answer: e.g., "First you have to ... then you are."
But man wants to be loved just for himself. He wants to be
himself first and then do something. But we have been trained by
different ideologies. We are unsure: "May we actually feel well
and worthwhile without having achieved anything?" "May we be
first? Always? In any case? Just like that? Only through our
mere existence? But do we not at least have to ...?" Even if we
have said yes with hesitation so far, will we not change sides
when they say: "Well, well, you may have the right to exist by
not having accomplished anything yet but not by having done bad
or even evil.
Just as the great humanist Goethe lets his hero Faust say at one
crucial point: "He deserves only his freedom and existence, who
has to win it every day anew!" Even the language of humanism, as
certainly one of the best worldviews, does not seem to confirm
us enough in the depths of our existence. In humanism, I must
ultimately be human and useful, in materialism I must believe in
the primacy of matter, in idealism in that of ideas, in
socialism I must be social, in capitalism effectively, and so
on.
{It would also be a misunderstanding to
interpret this work as if it were the primary goal to
relativize the strange Absolutes (as I understand the
'The Work' method), without at the same time giving something
better (+A). Even a dog will bite you if you take a bone away
without giving it a piece of meat.]
Sometimes I can identify myself everywhere but nowhere.
All these "isms" lack the most important. It may seem little if
only this one thing is missing. As the most important, absolute,
central element, however, it influences the last corner of a
person and their everyday life. As a strange Absolute, it can -
like an occupying power - determine all the essential rules of
life, and of course fanatical ideologies are a hundred times
worse than the examples above.
Guiding principle: “Use them like crutches etc. When your own strength is insufficient, 'take' them, then they will help you, but if you take them although you can walk on your own, they will harm you.”
Pro
The psychotropic drugs have the same advantages as
other Symptomatic
Therapies and Emergency Solutions, as I have already
described.
They are primarily symptom remover. They play a very important
role as emergency solutions. They can promote causal therapies to
a certain point. They are very suitable for risk control and the
security needs of all involved. Currently, there is a tendency to
one-sidedly use their advantages: diseases should be eliminated as
quickly as possible, without suffering and without costs, and
finally with the aim of adaptation to superficial normality and
functionality.
But on the other hand. there are also exaggerated tendencies to
refrain from psychotropic drugs in principle by the
'anti-psychiatry' community.
Contra
"Some psychiatric theory is often not much more than
a collection of justifications
for the widespread use of
psychotropic drugs." (According to S. Gelmam)
Consumption, as well as abuse of
psychotropic drugs, are huge. At the present time, millions of
people take psychotropic drugs for their overworked or broken souls.
But: The side effects are underestimated and the positive ones
overrated and the treatment may be more disadvantageous than the
disease itself. Drug-induced well-being often replaces the cure.
The pharmaceutical industry advertises, for example, with the idea
that people only become who they really are through psychotropic
drugs. However, one problem is that these people only seem ok but
they are not. You cannot tell that they suffer. They are in a good
mood on the outside and (maybe still) coping with everything but in
reality, they are already half broken, overloaded and burnt out.
Moreover, fellow humans are irritated. They see, for example, on the
one hand, that the person concerned is overwhelmed or leads an
unfavorable life and on the other hand, he seems to be fine.
The pharmaceutical industry spends almost twice as much on
advertising as it does on research!
[For example, in 2004 American medicine companies spent $ 57.5
billion on advertising, whereas spending a total of $ 31.5
billion on research and development. From: www.faz.net › on
14.3.2014.]
I suspect that the budget available for psychotherapy
research is only a fraction of that. In addition, it lacks the
lobby. It´s about profits or losses of billions of dollars for the
pharmaceutical industry when it comes to the forming of theories
as to whether mental illness is rather psychogenic or somatic.
Therefore, it influences the researcher in favor of the theory of
primarily somatically caused mental illnesses in order to justify
a psycho-pharmacological treatment. Taking psychotropic drugs is
similar to taking painkillers. Both do not heal, they only have a
symptomatic effect. The problem of using painkillers over a long
period of time is well known and is rightly regarded only as a
stopgap solution. The pharmaceutical industry suggests it to be
different from psychopharmacon therapy. I believe this to be wrong
because it disturbs the actual solution, the self-healing powers,
the natural defense and finally the healing at a certain point.
Are psychotropic drugs not for the soul what cortisone is for the
body? Do they not have the tendency: Once medical drugs, always
medical drugs? Are we not often like those slaves who were content
to occasionally be given a treat (such as medicines) by their
master but to be denied freedom? Are we not important players in
this game by joining the health-madness of the zeitgeist?
[As early as 1932, A. Huxley designed a bleak
future in 'Brave New World' where all people are made 'happy' by
psychotropic drugs.]
Many benefit from this: pharmaceutical companies, doctors,
insurance companies and so on. It is a billion dollar business.
Under the heading "Unheilige Allianzen" (unholy alliances), P.
Sawicki, head of the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in
Health Care, points out that “the professional societies and the
scientists involved are financially dependent on the
pharmaceutical industry. Pharmaceutical manufacturers bear the
costs of congresses, research or pay excessive fees to doctors and
scientific opinion leaders.” “Several thousand euros for a
half-hour lecture” are not uncommon according to Sawicki. Where to draw the line between bribery and reasonable
fee is then difficult to access. Stefan Weinmann (ibid.) has dealt extensively with
this difficult topic under the title "Erfolgsmythos
Psychopharmaka" (“The myth of the success of psychotropic drugs”)
recently. He questions the general prescription of
antipsychotic drugs and its excessive increase. "A variety of
studies shows the unexplained large increase or at least the lack
of decrease of psyhological deseases despite the
availability of effective therapeutic methods." (p. 12). Moreover,
he also points to outdated dogmas in psychiatry and criticizes the
current psychiatric establishment. He calls for an alternative
approach to psychoses, a holistic and systemic view that looks at
the subject psychoses not only one-dimensionally biologically (for
the benefit of the pharmaceutical industry) but also
psychosocially, and the involvement of psychiatric-experienced
patients in the professional system.
Due to lack of space, I can only give rough guidance
in this work because a decision about whether and when to stop
taking psychotropic drugs must be made individually.
In general, it can be said that there is a tendency to make
being-free-of-any-symptom the most important criterion currently
and that therefore psychotropic drugs are often prescribed for too
long or too high dosed. Generally one can recommend - as mentioned
at the beginning - : "Deal with psychotropic drugs like a crutch! Do not
be too proud to use them, do not fight them wrongly, for
example, 'Chemistry just harms' or something like that, take
them, especially in case of an emergency, before you collapse -
but keep in mind that they will not heal you, that these
crutches can weaken you from a certain point onward and that
there are other, very strong, healing powers inside and outside
of you that I try to illustrate in this work.” Recommended,
more recent literature: Stefan Weinmann (s.a.); Peter Lehmann:
"Psychopharmaka absetzen"; John Virapen and Leo Koehof; P.R.
Breggin, F. Frese, L. Mosher et al. (See bibliography).
Paradoxical
is what is contrary to the mind.[487]
Paradoxical, crazy situations belong to our world. They play
particularly a leading role in mental illnesses. They are
difficult to understand and to treat. I started from the
hypothesis that paradoxes result from Inversions.
I explained this in the section 'On the Emergence of Paradoxes' in
'Metapsychiatry'.
Paradoxical situations (apparently!) require "paradoxical"
solutions/ therapies.[488] Why?
If, for example, something that is only relatively negative is
taken absolutely negative, or something that is only
relatively positive, is taken absolutely positively, then we
face the seemingly paradoxical task to correct the too
negative in a positive direction and the too positive to
correct in a negative direction. Exaggerated said: We
are to learn to hate, what we love too much, we should love,
what we hate too much. This seems paradoxical, of course. But
thus the inversions can be corrected. If we see, as
therapists, illness, disturbance or misconduct too
one-sidedly negative, paradoxical situations will arise which
cannot be solved if we do not conceive them as Relatives. If
one considers this attitude, it has far-reaching and
surprising consequences.
If we take, for example, the bulimic's binge eating, the
depressive's complaining or the psychotic patient's insanity,
then our chief goal is to remove the unwanted behavior. This
goal is certainly not bad. However, the goal that the patient
accepts himself in spite of these disorders is more important.
His person has priority. The question of health or illness
should be dealt secondarily. According to the terminology of
this work, a problem in the self-domain (absolute range) is
more important than that in the ego-sphere (relative range).
But we take questions such as being healthy or ill, disturbed
or undisturbed, right or wrong behavior or the like very
personally - as if it were our own failure, degradation, etc. That is the symptoms, the
abnormal behavior etc. become something unacceptable and
hostile for the person concerned. Their occurrence leads
to (further) disturbance of the patient´s Self, especially
his self-esteem. Normally the patient tries to suppress or
fight the symptoms. However, the more he does this, the
more his Self is disturbed and the symptoms intensify.
Thus, a much bigger (absolute) problem occurs in addition
to the actual relative problem, namely the violation of
the person's integrity. This is important for the therapy
because therapeutic interventions are completely
different, depending on whether the problem is relative or
absolute. In this situation, it is wrong to see
improvement of the symptoms or of the behavior to be the
most important goal instead of a subordinate therapeutic
one. Otherwise, the therapist tragically adopts the same
basic attitude as this patient does - to reduce it to a
formula for example: "Change yourself, then you are
good!". If, however, I regard restoring his Self to be
primary and eliminating of the symptom to be second-rate,
then a `paradoxical 'strategy can be helpful, which could
be formulated like this:" Dear patient if you do not
accept yourself because of your symptoms but thereby you
limit your freedom, dignity and integrity - then you
should practice doing that, what you really do not like
about yourself, intentionally and repeatedly." I advise,
for example, bulimia patients if they are ashamed of their
binge eating, to gorge themselves deliberately sometimes.
Or, as already mentioned, I advise psychotic patients to
be deliberately crazy or depressives to intentionally and excessively lament
(I name this the `Cassandra.therapy)
People preferring this emergency solution
pass their and be a burden to others if this is
what they forbid themselves, or people that stutter to do
it on purpose, etc.
One of the most difficult problems arises from absolutizing
the moral evil resp. the good.
The real Self should also be beyond the (relative) good or
evil. If it is not, then it can be an important exercise to do
the relative evil from time to time and to let go of the
relative good from time to time. It is better to lose the
relative positive than the absolute positive. It is often more
important to do the unacceptable (relative) negatives
intentionally than to practice positive behavior. It is more
important to be able to be weak, incompetent, helpless,
immoral ... than to torment yourself, to be everywhere and
always only positive and to get everything under control. Then
we live against our nature.
Such and similar "paradoxical" intentions or interventions
have long been known.
Some Examples:
• Jesus
- Against the absolutization of people: "Love your enemies!"/
"Hate your relatives!"
- Against the absolutization of earthly life: "If you cling to
your life, you will lose it, and if you let your life go, you
will save it."
"When the wheat grain dies, it produces many seeds."
"Let the dead bury their dead."
- Against hubris: "Whoever wants
to be the greatest, be the servant of all." "The first will be
the last, and the last the first." "Whoever exalts himself
will be humbled."
- Against work-ideologies and
rationalism: "Blessed are the spiritually simple (poor)
people." "Those who must (only) be grown up (and cannot be
like children) are locked out of the kingdom of heaven."
- Against coercion: “And whosoever shall compel thee to go one
mile, go with him twain .” [489]
- Jesus' crucifixion itself seems paradoxical from the
perspective of the intellect.
• Paul
- Against absolutizing property: "~Own as if you do not
possess!"
- Against idealizing the partner: "~Be married, as if you were
not married!"
- Against over-adaption: "Do not lose yourself to this world,
even if you live in it."
- Against absolutization power: "When I am weak, I am strong."
- Against rationalism: "For the wisdom of this world is
foolishness with God."
- Against absolutizing earthly life: "To live is Christ, and
to die is gain."
- Against dogmatism: “~The letter of the (in principle good)
law kills.”
• Old Testament: Against
achievement-ideologies: "The Lord provides for those he loves
while they sleep." (Psalm 127:2) [490]
• Luther: Against
moralism: "Sin bravely and believe all the more bravely in
God's forgiveness!".
• H. Hesse: Against holding on:
"Well, my heart, say goodbye and get healthy!"
• Goethe: Against clinging onto
the earthly: "This die and be!"
Paradoxical intentions or interventions were rediscovered for
psychotherapy especially by Viktor Frankl and Selvini
Palazzoli.
Selvini Palazzoli formulated the treatment of paradoxes by
counterparadoxia. [491]
In systemic therapy, paradoxical interventions have been used
mostly by P. Watzlawick, J.H. Beavin and D. Jackson as a means
to treat paradoxical communications.[492] Their methods: symptom-prescription, the positive
reinterpretation of the symptom (reframing), relapse prediction, the
indication of the usefulness of a symptom.
One can also consider the first step of Alcoholics Anonymous, which
involves a capitulation of one's own will to the power of alcohol,
as a paradoxical step that opens up a new, stronger perspective. But
even the most correct paradoxical interventions should only be
suggestions of relative importance because at a certain point it
does not matter if and what you do: In front of God you are always
free.
In other words: From a certain point, paradoxes, incompatible
opposites and dilemmas can only be solved from a + meta-level
(+ spirituality, + A, God). This is important for the healing of
schizophrenia, since these sufferers are particularly involved in
contradictions, paradoxes and dilemmas.
(Further more in the unabridged German
version.)
"A man who no longer loves and no longer errs should have
himself buried straight away."
Goethe
I also refer to the chapter "Psychoses" in the
section 'Metapsychiatry'.
Knowing this chapter is useful in order to understand the following
sections.
My assessment - a brief outline.
1. Symptomatic therapies for psychosis have made
enormous progress in recent decades, but causal therapies have been
neglected.
2. The somatically oriented research and therapy dominates largely. The psychotherapy of psychoses plays a subordinate role if
looking at the rapid success by psychotropic drugs. Psychotherapy is
usually seen to be only complementary to drug therapy. However,
conversely, drug therapy should be seen as complementary to
psychotherapy.
[With regard to
literature on the psychotherapy of psychoses, I recommend the work
of S. Arieti, G. Benedetti, C. Scharfetter, M. Siirala, W. Daim,
Peter Breggin, Ann-Louise Silver, Bertram Karon, Daniel Dorman,
Robert Whitaker, or as a documentary movie; Daniel Mackler: „Take
These Broken Wings -- Recovery from Schizophrenia without
Medication.“ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EPfKc-TknWU
]
3.
The disadvantages of this situation are reflected too little.
a) In particular, the disadvantages and side effects of long-term
therapies with antipsychotics.
b) The fact that the antipsychotics do not cure but only cause
symptom elimination or improvement.
4. The theory of a primary metabolic disorder causing psychoses,
which is favored mainly by the pharmaceutical industry, is widely
accepted.
5. The pharmaceutical industry plays a too large role in this area.
6. Like somatic therapy, the psychotherapy of psychoses is
essentially based on a materialistic, positivistic ideology and is
therefore limited in its therapeutic power.
See Criticism
of Materialism and to 'Discussion
about secular psychotherapies'.
I had also presented pros and cons in “Emergency solution with psychiatric drugs”
Here are just some additional keywords regarding the antipsychotics, which are the psychotropic drugs used for schizophrenia treatment.Assessment of a Former Patient:
D. Buck, herself a psychosis patient in the Third Reich, criticizes one-sided psychiatry in the past and now, like for example the "psychiatry's claim of omnipotence with its definition ... that the psychoses are primarily caused by a cerebral metabolism disorder, according to the then psychiatric teaching of 'hereditary and physically induced and therefore incurable endogenous psychoses' that we had to pay for with our forced sterilizations and the 'euthanasia' victims with their lives. Today's psychoses experienced people must pay for this 'medical disease model' by taking psychotropic drugs possibly all their life and by experiencing their side effects ... The psychiatrists know as well as we do that this drug repression of symptoms cannot cure. So what could be more natural than asking those who healed themselves, what helped them ... Psychiatrists should actually also be interested in this activation of self-help resourcefulness. But then the 'disturbed brain metabolism' as the primary cause of psychoses would no longer be correct. These psychiatrists do not realize which burden a brain defect only regulable by medication can be for people affected." One should "take the missing psychiatric research of the mental causes of our psychoses and depressions into one's own hands. Because so far 98% of the research funds go into the somatic psychiatry research." [Dorothea Buck in: http://www.irren-offensive.de/rede_buck.htm1999/ 3/2014.]
The so-called
relapse-prophylaxis plays a prominent role in the therapeutic
recommendations of schizophrenia. The term 'relapse' must be
questioned critically. Obviously, it means that a patient has
schizophrenic symptoms again. From the point of view of a therapy
focused primarily on the freedom from symptoms, a relapse is a
negative finding from the outset and is believed to have to be
avoided by higher or longer antipsychotic medications.
Of course, this complies with the primary wishes of all persons
involved. However, you would see it a little differently from a
perspective that seeks healing.
Why?
I have already reflected repeatedly on the relativity of illness
or disease symptoms. The hypotheses made there state that all
disease symptoms, including 'relapses', should also be viewed
positively in some cases and must be treated non-medically. For
example, this will be the case, when an otherwise adequately
stabilized patient has been subjected to a temporary mental strain
or exposed himself to it - for example, when he tried to avoid
expensive defense mechanisms! The occurrence of symptoms in such
situations would be comparable to the recurrence of fears, for
example in the context of anxiety therapy. Just as it would be
downright wrong to advise a patient to avoid any anxiety-provoking
situations or to take anxiolytic medication before them, so an
attitude that seeks to avoid the recurrence of schizophrenic
symptoms at all costs would seem wrong to me, too. This would not
only be too cautious and would not only burden the patient with
avoidable drug side effects but above all, this would suppress
healing tendencies or prevent his healing completely.
It should be added here: " Stop taking antipsychotics very
slowly and flexible, usually in consultation with your
psychiatrist. Keep in mind that eliminating the drug will
eliminate also some side effects and may make you feel "too
good" and you think now, you have to make up for all that you
have missed, instead of slowly building your life up as you
would without a crutch.”
For the question of the discontinuation of antipsychotics see also
the section 'Emergency
solution with psychiatric drugs' and
`Problem
antipsychotics´.
I consider the schizophrenic symptoms to be
principally explainable and curable. I see the difficulty in
achieving a comprehensive theory of "schizophrenia" less in the
lack of appropriate explanations but more in the fact that
schizophrenogenic factors are so ubiquitous that a common
denominator, which I tried to describe with "inversion", is
difficult to delineate.
I would like to note the following concerning the questionability
of incomprehensibility and inexplicability of behavior as a
decisive criterion for their pathology:
• Separating healthy from sick as well as
understandable from incomprehensible is seen too absolute.
I believe that there are smooth transitions or a relativity of
these concepts.
Without wanting to caricature: How often do I not understand my
wife even after more than 40 years of marriage and how often do I
not understand myself? Or: Are not schizophrenic symptoms just as
difficult to explain as an adult's fear of a spider, a stutterer's
fear of speaking or an anorexia's fear of gaining weight? Is the
love of the almost 72-year-old Goethe for the 17-year-old Ulrike
von Levetzow not as crazy as "schizophrenic" behavior? And
why do we see one thing as understandable and the other as not?
And why do we smile indulgently about the one (or even find their
behavior admirable because against the norm) and give the other
pills according to a norm? Or is it the suffering that we want to
prevent? But for many, as with Goethe, it was also foreseeable
that their behavior would rather bring suffering.
• The incomprehensibility and inexplicability scare us and we will
tend to react fearfully and overlook that fear is a questionable
counselor. Therefore as long as we declare schizophrenic behavior
to be incomprehensible and inexplicable, we will consequently deal
with it questionable. Certainly, some schizophrenic symptoms seem
weird. But if we explain them, they will lose their uncanny and
terrifying effect.
In principle, yes! See reports of cured patients1 and of the psychiatrists mentioned above and in the footnote.2
[1: Reports
of
persons concerned: Renate Klöppel, Arnild Lauveng, J. Greenberg,
'Stories - Successful Schizophrenia' at:
http://www.successfulschizophrenia.org/stories.html, 2009.
2: Psychiatrists: Marguerite Sechehaye, Silvano Arieti, P.R.
Breggin, M. Eigen, Margaret Little, John G. Gunderson, Loren R.
Mosher, Harold F. Searles, Murray Jackson, Bertram P. Karon,
Daniel Mackler, Edward M. Podvoll, Robert Whitaker (→ reference
list).
Good overview of the most important points: F. Frese et. al. at:
http://schizophreniaabulletin.oxfordjournals.org/content/35/2/370.full,
2009.]
Ssee also the section 'Emergency
solution with psychiatric drugs' and `Problem
antipsychotics´
and the following section `Primary psychotherapy of
schizophrenia´. `
However, the path to
healing can be very tough. This stems in particular from the
described identification of the person concerned with the strange
Absolutes (sA). These have become strange-Selves and the attempt
to live with the actual Self is normally coupled with an
existential crisis. This withdrawal from what had established
itself as a strange Self is quite comparable to the arduous and
severe withdrawal of hard drugs.
1. Primary psychotherapy
is also for patients with chronic course as well as for severe
psychotic symptoms.
2. After years of experience I think that schizophrenia
and other non-organic psychoses are explainable and curable.
3. I believe that healing schizophrenia is theoretically
relatively simple but in practice often difficult and exhausting(→ Resistence).
4. I think to participate in a self-help group is very useful. I
would prefer a group that has a concept similar to the
Alcoholics Anonymous.
5. Parallel consultation / treatment of the most
important reference persons significantly
increases the chance of recovery.
To the
emergence of schizophrenic
symptoms see the statements in
section
'Psychiatry'.
An overview of what is meant can also be found in
the Summary
table.
Primary
Psychotherapy is +A (love/ God) based. That is, the strongest
+meta-level is the positive Absolute (+A) corresponding to an
unconditional love or, religiously, the unconditionally loving
God. This love is simple, free and unconditional. I can be in it
no matter how I am. [Ibid
I
showed the Resistance
against such an attitude.]
This spirit integrates all positive forces and relativizes all
negative influences - of both the patients and the therapists
with their different psychotherapeutic approaches.
The primary psychotherapy assumes that every person, even the
sickest, owns an indestructible, unassailable,
quasi-divine Self in their core - in addition to also
existing strange personality parts.This Self is the strongest force against pathogenic
influences.
By contrast, secular-based psychotherapies are based on a relative
or secondary image of humanity that I call the secondary personal
(P²). Its essential characteristics can be found in the
Summary
table
in column L.
The
strange Self of P² is not experienced as unbreakable, unassailable,
etc. And if both the sufferer and the therapist have this second-rate
image of man, then it is likely that such therapy will only be able to
achieve partial success.
If love/ God is the strongest and simplest therapeutic power against
schizophrenia, then why is healing normally so difficult and takes
so long? As mentioned above, I assume that certain strange Absolutes
are transmitted unconsciously mostly during childhood (or prenatal).
[I think the corresponding
effects on the embryo are very likely. For example, recent research
suggests that predispositions for autism are created before birth.
(FOCUS online 30.3.2014). It may be the same for schizophrenia or
other psychoses. However, I would not interpret these changes
generally as genuine changes in the embryonic brain cells but rather
as a result of 'inversions', which have already produced
'secondary realities' in the embryo, which are characteristic for
autism and other psychoses. But even if they were predominantly
organic, I think they are reversible.]
These strange Absolutes are materialized / somatized
sooner or later and gain an existential meaning for those
concerned. Even if they have certain disadvantages and future
risks are thereby pre-programmed, they represent decisive living
foundations for the child.
In primary psychotherapy these vital basics are now
questioned in their absoluteness. This is accompanied by a deep shock that is difficult to
bear. Since the old attitudes mean life and being
for the person concerned, their questioning is experienced as a
questioning of his existence and life altogether, that feels like
dying. This harsh way of healing is made even more difficult by the
fact that the person concerned usually has to walk alone because the
surrounding persons or groups have similar philosophies of life and
are not able or willing to give them up, too. For they too, like all
of us, are dependent on them to a greater or lesser extent.
Why only some members of such groups become ill and others
do not, I discussed in → Emergency
solution A.
[Note: I wrote the following sections of this chapter for patients some time ago. Therefore they contain sometimes repetitions or overlap with what has been said so far.]
This section is about certain basic attitudes
towards life, which can be rather favorable or unfavorable for
us. But the question whether we behave favorably or
unfavorably has only a relative importance because the fact
that God loves us is far more relevant, even if we behave
unfavorably - and that will always be the case every now and
then.
Note: The unfavorable attitude can even be more sensible
temporarily than the favorable one.
The person concerned
lacks the first and most important answer (listed in the right
column, under 1.) when confronted with problems. He is
directly dependent on the solution of the problems. They
determine him, take him captive. He is not above the problems.
In the case of faults, he reacts self-accusing or
self-destructive. One can solve problems worse, reach life
goals worse when one submits to them. Then one is not master
of the situation. It is unfavorable to recognize no fault as
one's own but it is perhaps even more unfavorable to bear the
blame for a long time. |
People with a favorable basic strategy have
two answers when problems occur: 1. and most important answer: I am free - in God. This makes me stand above the earthly problems. I am and remain good enough whether I solve the problem or not. I do not have to solve the problem. That means. First one should remember this basis, then only, secondarily give oneself the following 2. answer: try to solve the problem from a free position. Fault (guilt) is treated relatively, secondary. It is favorable to give your own guilt to God. |
It is an unfavorable and also unnecessarily
strenuous faith if one believes in earning one's own
worth. Work first, then only self-worth and feeling
good, is a questionable life maxim. However, work or
workability often has the status of an idol in our
society. But there could be written on such people's
gravestone: "His life was only work and the fulfillment
of duties." Such a gravestone can be thrown away.
Someone once said it was a tombstone for a horse but not
for a human being. |
From a religious point of view, man can feel like
God's image in every situation of life. What would be higher?
You can even read about human beings in the psalms: "You are
gods." Man can say that he is always good enough before God,
without preconditions, that he has an invariable basic value
without having to give something in advance. Man is thus
entitled to "basic well-being" and deeper, existential joy.
Motto: A holy joy and serenity shall not leave me. |
It is unfavorable for us if our core
definition includes only the adult role. |
In my opinion, the strongest core
definition is to be the child of God and to subordinate
the adult role with all its responsibilities. (See more
details later.) |
It is unfavorable to believe that oneself
or the world is quite good or quite bad. In the first
case one is naive and sooner or later will be confronted
with reality. In the second one you will quickly give
up. This also spoils the joy of life. |
It would be good if man, so you, too, dear
reader, would not only think that he himself but also
the other people, the world and just the entire life is
good enough. Motto: It's good enough. (I deliberately
write "good enough" because of course a man or life is
not only good.) |
It is unfavorable to believe that one is
ultimately subjected to fate or matter or nothing. Of
course, God's existence cannot be proved. However,
neither his non-existence. In this case, it is rather
stupid, or at least unfavorable not to believe in
anything. |
It would still be beneficial if one had
deep down a primal trust, an existential feeling of
security and safety. This should extend beyond the
current condition, physical well-being and death. |
Any strange Absolute (sA) comes first and
the Self second. Man is dependent and outside
himself-determined by sA. He is ultimately its slave but
believes to be its master. Conscience, morality, earthly
responsibilities, achievements, opinions of others,
ideals, security, health, success, recognition, guilt,
fixed goals, roles, norms, etc. determine the Self. A permanent effort is required in order to achieve the absolute positives, to repel the negatives and to fill the emptiness - an ultimately unnecessary waste of energy. |
The Self comes first and (almost)
everything else second: conscience, morality, earthly
responsibilities, achievements, opinions of others,
ideals, security, health, success, recognition, guilt,
fixed goals, roles, norms, etc. The I-self is free here,
self-determined and self-responsible and master in his
own home. (Religiously and in my opinion stronger:
trusting primarily the loving God with only secondary
responsibilities, thereby relieving!). |
It is unfavorable to regard the Relative as
self-evident, just as it is unwise to question the real
self-evident – namely the promises to the Self (see
above). |
It is wise to take the Relative only
relatively and to place the +Absolute (God and his
promises) absolutely. |
Many of the mentally ill are in an (often
unconscious) role or attitude of a victim. Thus the
(former) offender has still got power over them! The own
role of sacrificing is similar. Here we make ourselves a
victim of our own or foreign goals, ideals, successes,
of the conscience, etc. |
It would be good to drop the
victim's role and if possible, not to get involved in an
(even if understandable) offender's role. Religious:
I-want-to-trust-in-God-standpoint and as a victim: I am
God's child and if I am a victim, maybe He will pay back.
("The vengeance is mine," says God. (Dt 32:35)
|
It is unfavorable to take the life height more important than the life width. |
The life width is more important than the
life height. Because the wider your life, the more
secure and the higher you can build your life. |
It is widespread, unfortunately in
Christian circles, too, to believe that one necessarily
has to be good and morally. Morality without freedom
(grace) is deadly, even the Bible says so. That is it.
Always having to be only moral is a torture on which the
repressed immorality flourishes. Karen Horney, a
psychoanalyst, calls such people ~`pressure angels´. It is unfavorable to love one's neighbor more than oneself. More → “Christian” one-sidednesses … Disadvantageous mindsets are: ⦁ Parents only love us if we are good. ⦁ Other people only if we are really great. ⦁ Our partner only loves us if we love her, too. ⦁ Our conscience only loves if we do not act against it. ⦁ Morality loves us only if we are moral. ⦁ Success loves us only if we are successful. |
The easiest way to be good is with the
freedom to be allowed also to be immoral or bad, too. I
think you also try intuitively to communicate to your
children: "First you are accepted and loved, then only
you should try to be moral and good. One oneself
benefits the most by living a moral life. It is not to
please the dear Lord or someone else." In other words, commandments or the like are made to serve man and not vice versa. Likewise, church should be there for man and not man for the church. It is therefore wise to try voluntarily to be moral, unwise, to believe one has to be. |
It is unfavorable to take care only of the
body or the new car or the apartment and not to do
something for the psyche. Unfortunately, we did not
learn this very important lesson at school. |
In order to land more on the "favorable
side", it is useful to regularly practice "soul care".
The old forces, which offer only a temporary substitute
for real success (happiness) but exploit in the long
run, are deeply anchored. But they can be overthrown, at
least weakened, by patient practice. Concretely: Just as
one takes time to eat, one should also take time to
nourish the soul. |
In short: It is favorable for us: • First basis, then try to jump. • Set the bar at zero, then jump. • First freedom, then optimum trials. • First (free) absolute, then relative. • First take absolute, then give relative • First heavenly, then earthly. • First Self, then I-activities. • First width of life, then way. • First freedom, then duty • First width of life, then height. • First life, then role. • No demands but wishes to oneself and the world. |
|
I repeat because important: the question of
whether we behave favorably or unfavorably has only a
relative importance, for the fact that God loves us is
even more important, even if we behave unfavorably - and this is going to and is allowed to be happening again and again. |
Conscience,
morality, earthly responsibilities, achievements,
security, other people's opinions, ideals, health,
well-being, success, recognition, roles, norms; But
also: misfortunes, traumatization, guilt, etc.
↓ Self |
Self
↓ Conscience, morality, earthly responsibilities, achievements, security, other people's opinions, ideals, health, well-being, success, recognition, roles, norms; But also: misfortunes, traumatization, guilt, etc. |
The left illustration shows different
strange Absolutes dominating a person's Self and cause
heteronomy. |
Dear
reader, I am aware of the difficulties with this issue. They
lead to central questions:
What is man's essence? What is man's worth? What is his sense,
his happiness? Does he not have to do something before he can
claim the Absolute? Is there not the danger of ethical
relativism, where the end justifies the means - positions
which are taken on by some leaders again and again and which
they misuse for their purposes? [496]
Within the scope of this work I can only briefly discuss these
questions. First of all, I would like to point out that
psychical illness almost always evolves on the basis of
a foreign-directed, little valued, weak or self-destructive
(felt) Self and that it is our most urgent task to give back
people above all their actual Self, their dignity, their
self-determination right, their inner freedom and to restore a
fundamental enjoyment in living and in being themselves. We
will be able to do this more easily if we start from a
corresponding image of man in theory and therapy. Imagine for
example a therapist thinking of his patient: "This is a
schizophrenic," or similarly bad. And further, quite
professional, technocratically and perhaps quite like
described in a textbook: "Now it is important to figure out,
is this a hebephrenic, catatonic, paranoid-hallucinatory
schizophrenia or a simple one or a neurosis and which drug I
use against it?" This therapist can be professionally
extremely competent but ultimately he turns the sick (as well
as himself by the way) into a thing - and the tragic is:
mentally sick people mostly see themselves this way.
Will not a psychotherapy mobilize the strongest forces that
values human beings most highly?
However, many see the man too low, too weak and too unfree. I
am in favor of a view in which man is created in God's image,
in which he is free and can feel valuable and loved even
without preconditions: an unsurpassable basis – at least I
have not found a stronger and more valuable one. [497]
What lets me be so sure of it?
1. It's just as I see my children:
"They are precious, free, loved and precious, without
preconditions and without performance as they are, and they
can feel good before they lift a finger!" Only after this
assurance is it advisable to point out the tasks in life
(→`First
A then B'). This also not, so that the good God
feels comfortable but because you better go through life and
others benefit from it, too! Unfortunately, the reverse
principle of "first achievements - then life" is still
widespread and propagated in some places by the church.
2. What is handed-down from Jesus
about his life and his statements is in particular him
appearing primarily as a savior and only secondarily as a
admonisher and he primarily proclaiming a liberating and
joyful message. This message is also extremely humane and
does not expect any prerequisites.[498] The
language of love is expressed in both cases. This means that
man must first be taken serious, given his freedom,
self-determination and dignity before he can give anything.
First, man must be clothed before he can give half of his
coat. Even a dog gets fed before being send to guard. "Love
your neighbor as yourself". But if you believe, you must love
your neighbor mostly, even more than yourself, it would be a
vain and even unchristian-like attempt.
Usually there is a typical series of unfortunate circumstances
just like this: the parents had too little love and could gave
too little love - and the concerned cannot love himself enough
but he tries in vain to get love through certain achievements.
But you cannot permanently offset the lack of love,
appreciation and freedom by something else. Only temporarily,
only as a substitute, only if need be – but then the soul
wants what really saturates it: a strong, redeeming Absolute
with true unconditional love.
In addition, some key words:
Redemption is a gift, solutions must be worked out. Redemption
is more important than solutions. Redeemed one finds most
easily solutions. If no solution is possible, the more
important and simpler redemption is still possible: earthly
lack of freedom is compensated by spiritual freedom, earthly
contradictions are dissolved by spiritual redemption, etc.
Paul Watzlawick argues similarly, "He locates many
disturbances of everyday human communication (especially as
regards couples) on the relationship level and sees
meta-communication as a solution to dissolve them." [499]
Or Socrates: Keep in mind that this earthly life is not the
last one and that it does not matter much how you achieve
here, then you will not be manic in happiness and will not be
depressed in misery.[500] For what else reason
could people experience liberation despite of existential
threat-situations?
One may symbolize those two lifestyles just mentioned like this:
On the left, the adult Ego is at the center: striving hard to cope with life and to get a grip on life. It never has any real peace. It can never let go completely. It must always be attentive. It is very serious, mostly over-strained, quickly burnt out. It has to see rivals or even enemies in many fellow men. It is never sufficient unto itself. It is always responsible.On the right, the I, that trusts in God like a child, is at the center. It lets itself getting loved, does not need to do anything. It is playful, much lighter and yet more realistic because it does not demand anything (from itself) that it cannot offer anyway. However, the person concerned has not turned off his active adult I! On the contrary, it will be all the more powerful if it can rest and make mistakes at the same time.[505]
The person concerned has not turned off his active adult-I! It will not turn into its own enemy. But: the I, that idealizes itself, becomes its own enemy. As it is not ideal as a matter of fact, its shadow must become its opponent automatically. It idealizes and fights against itself at the same time - or falls back on other emergency solutions. Do we not all bear the longing in us to be like a child, just to let us fall, to bear no responsibility? Christians have such a thing when defining themselves primarily as God's children. "Truly I tell you, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven." (Mt 18:3).[506] © T. Oettinger 2003/2019Many people live according to an unfavorable strategy, which is: "First B then A." What is meant by this? Most of us are educated in such a way that we have to fulfill certain conditions (B) before an acceptance or absolute feeling (A) of the individual person occurs. ('A' could also be named the acceptance by God.) Before the person (P) can feel comfortable in his/ her skin, even before P can have the feeling that P has the right to exist at all, P must have done something from a primary B position. fulfillling any preconditions is then the first and most important thing - the person him-/ herself is secondary that is less important.
This can be represented symbolically as follows:
We are
smart when we live according to the motto "first A, then B",
when we always assume that we are valuable, unique, lovable and
(in the core) free and that we are allowed to always feel good
enough. All this comes first - even before we have lifted a
finger. We are wise when we see that these fundamental rights
are not extinguished even if we make the most serious mistakes.
AB'
can also stand for farewell and liberation. The B * in front
of A should not "die" in vain but in order to be really alive
as B itself. It can live
properly only after A, or on the basis of A. It is not all about
being against B (our desires, our achievements, etc.) but it is
also for B.
We will have the earthly things twice and more if we do not
let ourselves be devoured by them. As the saying goes: “Seek
the Kingdom of God above all else and he will give you
everything you need." [507]
We
will
have the heavenly (A) and the earthly (B) if we give
priority to heaven. [508]
But we will be weaker if we gain
our inner strength only from ourselves or from other people.
It is the old, morbid pattern to be subjected to fulfilling
this or that condition. We are then, servants of these things
or persons. As long as we meet the requirements, they, in
their grace so to speak, allow us to be proud, feel
comfortable or grant a thrill, usually only briefly. But if we
do not meet their demands, the punishment comes automatically
and relentlessly. They are going to bleed us white, as we
should work for them and not they for us in their point of
view. Could we let them go, better hand them to God, we would
be more relaxed.
Similarly:
I believe that man can freely
choose between the absolutes. (I've already mentioned "The
absolute attitude")
Elsewhere a
person's freedom to choose is only relative. More precisely, I
believe that every human is faced with a free, existential and
absolute decision, even if he is not aware of it. It is a kind of
principle attitude for or against the good. I know I am stepping
into a sphere solely concerning the faith. But as I try to show,
it is not a purely theoretical or speculative subject but
something that plays a decisive role in our lives. For it is
connected with the question: “Am I able to claim the
above-mentioned characteristics of the Self for myself and for
others due to such a basic attitude or am I not able to?”
What impact does this have on the therapy and on the self-esteem of the patients? It seems obvious: Whatever a human's picture of himself will be it will be decisive for his self-esteem. Likewise: What kind of picture of humans the therapist has will be essential for the therapy success. How can a patient develop a strong, good sense of self-esteem, when even his therapist maybe underestimates the Self? If it is true that every one of us wants to be loved for his own sake, then it is good to do that as a therapist as well. In one of the following chapters I will present a corresponding concept for schizophrenia therapy.
This aspect is about the positive
Absolute, in particular. The result of the positive Absolute is
redemption, the positive Relatives make solutions.
About both I have already written in the section `Solutions´.
"You are in principle redeemed by God." Redemption comes before
solution. Redemption comes also before self-redemption, since
self-redemption also entails self-destruction and destruction to the
outside.
Redemption begins with freedom, with "I am allowed to". It would not
be redemption if it begins with a must, a duty. Redemption is
the basis of all solutions. The second step would be to try to solve
the specific problem. Especially as I do not have to solve the
problem necessarily, the resulting serenity will additionally
increase the likelihood of solving the problem!
Even thinking about God/ Jesus brings redemption and relativizes all
strange Absolutes.
Freedom and
Responsibility
Optimal relief will occur (begins) if you assume only an
absolute, individual 'responsibility' (absolute basic attitude) and
otherwise only relative responsibilities. That means all the normal
responsibilities will overburden us if they are seen to be absolute,
like Freud's “never-ending search for truth”, C. G. Jung's
individuation requests or the dogmatic formulated responsibilities
of a misunderstood Christianity or of other religions.
(See also Disorder of
the Person's Safety and Freedom; Examples can be
found in the German unabridged version in the meditation
`Orientation and Freedom'.)
Motto: The one who is as free as allowing himself to also be
dependent owns the greater autonomy.
Security comes before autonomy. Even as an adult, like a
beloved child, you can feel secure, free and autonomous in love/ in
God.
But autonomy and security, as well as the other absolute dimensions
are so only in principle but not total. However, they also affect
all other aspects of human life by their fundamental nature.
Therapy goal autonomy?
Autonomy is only an absolute when we think about the
self-determination with respect to the absolute - not when it comes
to self-determination in the earthly realm.
(For more information, see section: "The absolute attitude"
and Disorder
of the Person's Independence and Ties)
"You have an unconditional right to live, even if you are aggressive, crazy, irrational, evil, lazy, paranoid, neurotic, dirty or otherwise. You should try to act good but if you do not, then you do not. I strongly advise you to practice deliberately and playfully what you absolutely do not allow yourself to do, then you are master of it - that is, negative behavior does not have to enslave you." Practice both: functioning and dysfunctioning."
"You are more important than all earthly
values, more important than all ideals."
"No
one
is worth more (but also no less) than you.”
“You are God's image."
“Try to rise above the zeitgeist, who wants to
persuade you that we have to optimize ourselves."
Everything is allowed but not everything is good.
Everything will be fine.
Therefore: "I have nothing to lose - I'm free!"
"Do not become a slave to the earthly." according to Genesis 1:28
Man and the world are in need of redemption. Earthly existence, immanence often is very good - but good transcendence is even better and goes much further. God is omnipotent but man is only partly powerful. Man is wise when relying not only on himself but more on God. I have not come to know any stronger and better "power" in my life than God, and I do not believe that there is anything bigger and more loving."If you do not know how to carry on, you can turn to God or Jesus. If you do not believe in them, you may try once. In the simplest case, you just say/ think `God´ or 'Jesus' and 'I want to try to believe that I am absolutely loved and safe!' Something like that, depending on how you feel. In my experience, it is best for us to be affirmed by him and not if we believe we have to give him anything or to be a good person - for he has given us birth to be free and not that we are his or other people's slaves. If you want to know more about God/ Jesus, you can read in the New Testament what he is like and what he advises you."
People are more important than things.
"Do what is good for you!" is a frequently heard motto in
therapies. Normally the person concerned understands 'good' to be
'well-being'. But I can also create well-being through a +sA (for
example through drugs or alcohol or other) but then have to pay a
price.
(Like Nietzsche's “Rapture peaks" and their
consequences: "peak and abyss" (Nietzsche.)
"You may have all the feelings that exist, especially the
'crazy' and 'evil' ones such as hatred, envy, jealousy, revenge,
etc. Do not fight them, try not to suppress them - they are mostly
relatively unfavorable and therefore try to put them aside or give
them to God. If not, then not. But sometimes they can also have a
positive function. If you taboo feelings, that you experience
negatively, I advise you to practice them on purpose. Test playing
the jealous, vengeful, madman's role, etc."
Why are there people who seemingly have no feelings, f. e.
autistics? I think many of them carry in themselves the prohibition
from the childhood of not being allowed to have bad or irrational
feelings and thoughts.
Why are there people who seemingly have no feelings, f. e.
autistics? I think many of them carry in themselves the prohibition
from childhood of not being allowed to have bad or irrational
feelings and thoughts.
Try to
accept your illness and try to do something about it but do
not make the disease an enemy, which must be defeated.
Do not hide, do not be ashamed and get help at the right time.
Do not taboo your illness but do not hawk it around either.
Believe that life goes on, even if you die on earth.
Try to believe that God is
stronger than all negative forces.
If your present "God" forbids you
something imperatively, then find a God who gives you freedom.
If your "devils" are strong or even stronger than your present
God, then look for a stronger God.
If you do not get along
with father or mother, take God as father / mother who
will always love you.
If you feel worthless, then look for a God who will lift you
up.
If you are always guilty, try to find a merciful God who
forgives you all that you regret.
Morality is good but the "primary
virtue" is more
important and easier.
I. Kant: "It is impossible to think of anything at all in the
world, or indeed even beyond it, that could be considered good
without limitation except a good will. Understanding, wit, judgment and the like, whatever
such talents of minds may be called, or courage, resolution,
and perseverance in one's plans, as qualities of temperament,
are undoubtedly good and desirable for many purposes, but they
can also be extremely evil and harmful if the will … is not
good."
[https://genius.com/Immanuel-kant-groundwork-of-the-metaphysics-of-morals-chap-i-annotated
]
Like Kant, I see the primary virtue also in goodwill
but more precisely in a fundamental will to the good.
(See also
`The
absolute attitude´and `Right
and wrong´.)
I advise you, "Call on your Self /God." "Remember your
'primary will' ('primary virtue')".
“It is not a mortal sin if you, like every human being, in part want
and do evil.”
Mottos: 'I-strength is good,
the strength of the actual Self even better!'. Or:
'self-strength is more important than Ego-strength.'
"Try to be strong - but you can also be weak because the most
important goes by itself.
Let God (or others) do what you cannot do yourself."
(Further see in Self-strength
and Ego-strength).
People say that the way to
hell is paved with good intentions.
Even more: the way to hell is especially paved with many musts.
It is therefore favorable: no must, no compulsion - even the
favorable does not have to be.
We were born to be free. Control and discipline are good
but freedom is better.
You may be, however that is!
(See Meditation: `Orientation and Freedom' in the German
unabridged version).
Seen from this angle, I
discussed Hallucinations
- an important symptom of schizophrenia - as new, strange
'creations'.
The hypothesis regarding their genesis was: Inversions
in
all aspects can promote or cause hallucinations, in particular
inversions in aspect 14 ("main impact direction").
Conversely, it is hypothesized that all revisions that all
ultimately strengthen the Self, must help against
hallucinations, especially those that can be categorized under
aspect 14, such as "You are a unique creature - the so-called
normal reality is subordinated." Or, "Everything that comes from
you, all your 'creations' are allowed to be, even if they are
bad."
In addition, other interventions or meditations may be useful
because other aspects (mainly asp. 3 and 4) play a major role.
In these cases, it has proven useful for me to reflect the
content and the possible origin of the acoustic hallucinations
together with the patient. For example to investigate the
following important questions: Which persons could such voices
come from? What significance do these persons have for the
person concerned? What functions could the hallucinations have?
According to my experience, it is very fruitful if the person
concerned does not suppress or even fight the voices he hears
but has a conversation with these voices in the therapist's
presence. In doing so, I advise to “somewhat” agree with the
voices, in order to avoid struggle with them, and to take into
account the fact that these voices have partly positive
functions, that there is usually "something true in them". As a
result, the person concerned does not come into conflict with
himself because the originally mostly external causes for the
hallucinations became his own strange-Selves someday.
However, in the next step, after the voices were partially
proved right, I advise to present the own position corresponding
to the actual Self - like, "Voice, you are not entirely wrong
here and somehow I can understand where you're coming from - but
essentially, I see it differently (now) namely so and so,
etc."
For example, if the voice insults the person concerned, which is
often the case if it says something like, "You're a pig!", the
optimal response would not be, "I've never been a pig!" but
“Yes, sometimes I am a pig.” or something like that, "because we
all are sometimes like pigs." This latter and strongest reply
would be based on love/ God, who says, "You may be a pig or
whatever. You can be, whatever you are, you always loved and
made in my image - and everything else is less important!"
In my experience, most mentally ill people are
fixed for functioning - that is, they function according to a strange
Absolute, respectively its "system". They miss out on life this way.
How many people do realize "I only function!" - but they cannot
change it because a change is possible only very slowly (because
that is how it has been done since childhood). "Do not fight it,
first try to accept it and then if possible, put it aside lightly.
Practice loving and in particular being loved -
especially in those situations when you think you do not
deserve it." "First being, then achieving" is not a bad motto. Or:
"The Lord provides for those he loves while they sleep." (Ps.127,1)
- at least he gives the most important things. Or, according to Augustine: "Love - and do what you
want!"
"Many people believe they must do good. Nice if you can do
so and have the needed strength. But it is also normal to do evil or
nothing. If you forbid yourself this, you may practice it playfully.
You may as well inform your friends and family members that you
should practice the negative behavior – it is for their benefit, too
because that way, no aggressiveness builds up. Besides, you
can apologize afterward, too. Or you simply let God forgive your
'sins'."
Knowledge and mind are good,
trust in God even better.
Rationality without irrationality becomes sterile - so "do not
suppress your irrationality and your ignorance. Both God and
your ignorance will protect you from being flooded with too much
information because all earthly information is of relative
importance."
See also: Belief and
knowledge.
"Try to be open - but you may
also be closed down and hide."
"You are the light of the world!" and "Do not put your light
under a bowl!", says Jesus.
But we are also allowed to remain sitting in the dark, hide and
betray ourselves - without losing ourself.
Under this aspect, I called
delusion, an important symptom of schizophrenia, primarily the
result of judgment and thinking disorder. These, in turn,
according to the hypothesis, may have been due to Inversions
in
every aspect but mainly due to inversions in aspect 18 'Values
and meanings' - as I show in the corresponding section of Delusion in the part 'Psychiatry'.
Analogous to this, a revision of this inversion in this aspect
18 should be focused on - but just as a 'therapeutic spreading',
revisions will also have a therapeutically favorable effect on
all other inverted aspects, so in particular the person
concerned's self-esteem, which can be strengthened by
appropriate meditations. For example: "You have/are already the
most important thing (your Self, God's love, made in his image)
- everything else is less important." As I said, this also
applies to all other aspects. That is to say, any meditation or
attitude change that confirms the person's true Self will be
therapeutically beneficial. They all find their common
denominator in an unconditional love for the person concerned,
or the +A or God's promises - whatever you want to call it. In
short, I believe that nothing is as effective against delusion
and against all other schizophrenic symptoms as this
unconditional love.
One question frequently arises in therapy: Should one correct
the delusions of the patient directly ?
In my experience, it is best to acknowledge the subjective truth
that the delusional thoughts have for the patient and to try to
present their positive function (as a defense mechanism, for
example). Then depending on the stability of the person
concerned, one can encourage him to loosen or give up this
protective function and to trust his true Self/ God. At the same
time, I would like to point out that it can make sense to use
the old defense mechanisms (as well as antipsychotics) again, on
purpose, in case of greater stress. Of course, this requires an
intensive examination of the content and background of the
delusions.
Regarding the thinking: "You may have all kinds of thoughts,
even the evil and crazy - killing ones, thoughts of revenge,
sadistic, masochistic, sodomitic thoughts or behavior -
You may curse God in your thinking or out loud (he will stand
it) or curse your fellow human beings, even if they cannot stand
it. Try to accept these or similar thoughts or behavior and thus
you in your totality. But do not let them run to seed because
they usually have a negative effect but they become even more
negative if you taboo them. Yes, sometimes they can be very
important and have a positive function, then it would be false
if you suppress them." Howsoever, "You may be whatever you are,
what you may think and do. Try to be clever (but you do not have
to be clever either). Where appropriate, practice actively the
evil, crazy thoughts by deliberately thinking them if you tend
to taboo them."
I believe that most people
who once had a psychosis have been burdened by certain strange
Absolutes by birth or prenatally. They live feeling `I am only
allowed to be under preconditions´. If they meet these
preconditions, they are relatively stable, albeit always at
risk. This applies more or less to all of us but especially to
some. In my view a psychosis occurs then when someone can no
longer fulfill certain strange Absolutes or no longer wants to!
We then regress and return to a point in childhood where we were
overstrained by certain sAs. We are then helpless, powerless and
at somebody's mercy like an embryo or a child.
[Already in the 1920s, Harry Stuck Sullivan
discovered that patients who were seriously ill returned to
the forms of early childhood communication. Compare: http://suite101.de/article/therapy-der-psychosen-a116571
, 2014.]
Even as an adult, we retain childlike parts, even though
we are mature and smart in other spheres of life. Now the dark sides
of the then established sA become clear. In order not to stop their
demands by illness they should be relativized. How should that
happen?
"Simply" by daring, under the protection of the +A, to
take the position that we were not allowed to take in our childhood.
So, if we dare to trust like a child of God and feel secure in
"Abraham's womb", without being compelled to bring anything, and I
mean anything, in order to be entitled to life, then the most
important sA will be disempowered and we will be in principle (but
not totally - which is not possible here) safe and free - and will
have the best basis to be healed. We will then also have the
experience that despite this helpless, stuck situation, nothing
happened to us and we will feel like a new human. Quite a few
psychiatrists thought similarly and acted fruitfully like S. Freud
in a certain way and A. Janov in his particular way
("Urschreitherapie"). Other therapists, such as John Rosen,
Marguerite Sechehaye and Jacqui Lee Schiff, also succeeded by
responding to their schizophrenic clients' regression and nourishing
them like infants and children. While Roses and Ship fed their
patients by bottle, Sechaye satisfied their needs on a symbolic
level."[514] They
all agreed not to demand any preconditions and achievements
from their patients and to provide security and appreciation
in the form of an "auxiliary ego" or something similar. But
this way seems easier than it is. As it means for the
person concerned a great risk, to entrust himself again like a
baby or toddler to someone who perhaps, similar to earlier,
does not satisfy the primordial needs and thus repeats the old
story. But even for therapists a common way with the patient
is not easy because they are, as each one of us, inhibited by
some own sA. I think, it is therefore favorable for all
parties involved to bring the +A/ the love/ God into play, as
not to overburden the involved persons or to develop a
symbiotic relationship because +A is the self-evident
and the independent, that lives by itself and prevents
that.
(See the story `Adult-Ego
and child-I´)
The present is good –
eternity better.
One advises, "Carpe diem!" (Seize the day!) - but I believe that
the day, the present is only an attribute of eternity which
itself again is the most important thing. So you can sometimes
sleep through the day without feeling guilty.
Some say "The way is the goal."
But "Whoever does not know the destination, cannot have the
way." (Chr. Morgenstern).
"Try to have no fixed
expectations but only wishes from you and from the world."
The earthly future can be good - the best future is in heaven.
We are already inscribed and sealed in the book of eternal life
in all of our first-rate uniqueness.
Therefore we do not need to have any existential fear anymore.
"Stand up and lift up your heads because your redemption is
drawing near."
"Try to trust: your Self is indestructible! What is destructible are our strange Selves. But our strange Selves are not only bad, they also protect us but only like heavy tanks. They are good in an emergency but generally too heavy and too expensive. Try not to fight your enemies but to let them be, perhaps even to 'love' them (not what they do!), then it will be easier for you to admit or even love your own inner enemies. This is not a must! You can also hate your enemies, in an emergency that is even favorable but generally, it is too exhausting and makes depended. We often defend our strange Selves because we consider them to be our own Self and fight against our own Self because we consider it strange. But we also do not have to defend our Self. It defends itself. Stronger: God defends it. It is enough if you defend your I. If you have no strength for it, do not be afraid, God still protects the most important thing, your Self. God will also avenge you. Your perpetrators will be treated fairly by him, that is if they repent, he will forgive them if not, then they judged themselves or: “Vengeance is mine”, says God but he is still more the grace. You do not have to saddle yourself with this exhausting judgeship - He will do that." (See also `Aspect 23: Protection, Defense´)
People who are interdependent
are connected with each other like with umbilical cords.
This often affects several people at the same time. So also
different generations. Even if parents or grandparents no longer
live, we can be dependent on them. One thinks, as long as one
has still, what makes dependent, does not happen much. However,
we overlook how much we must sacrifice ourselves for this and
ultimately come too short, and that our fears and diseases have
to do with this situation.
What can you do? First, I recommend two exercises:
1. The participants should do "separation exercises": they
should work on the points at which they are dependent on other
people (alone driving, shopping, visiting, traveling, expressing
their own opinion, their own wishes clearly and not pretended
wishes the other, etc.)
I recommend at least once in the partnership.
- to make a fictional separation conversation. What if we are
separated by destiny or divorce? (The conversation should be in
the details, otherwise, it makes little sense!)
- occasionally conduct a conversation with reversed roles. I am
you and you are me - and what we say then!
2. Likewise, it is useful for dependent partners to do
approaching exercises because interdependent ones cannot
separate and not approach each other enough too.
In both cases, they must fear the loss of their mental
stability. When they are completely separated, they fear the
loss of something that seems absolutely important to them (e.g.
partner); in the case of a more intense approximation, they must
fear that they will be "sucked" of the other.
In other words because they fear their own loss in separation
and the loss of the other in intense approximation, the partners
remain in a fixed middle or stalemate position. The freedom they
still have is determined by the degree of their dependencies.
A possible deeper solution consists in revising the definition
of what love is. (Possibly also what God is.)
A big field! The most important misunderstandings here are, in
short: lack of self-love, excessive mutual consideration, the
opinion of having to prove oneself and the other, dogmatized
principles and ideologies, false gods, etc.
The figure shows a child who
was blocked in his development at the age of three years.
If this blockage has not been lifted, the blocked child will
still be within us, even if we are 25, 35, 40 years or older.
We humans appear as one whole person. In our interior, however, we
have many, contradictory spheres. In these spheres, we are differently
secure, differently congruent, differently mature etc. We can have a
lot of experience and competence in some spheres and be there much
'further' than people of the same age. At other levels, however,
it can look absolutely different: There we are afraid, unsafe and
helpless like small children - maybe even like a newborn child. While
we give the image of an adult to the outside, there is in truth a
different, other picture, which, as I said, can range from the newborn
to the wise old man.
Thus outer appearance and inner conditions are often in extreme
contradiction. Maturity is welcome to us - the helpless-childish or
evil parts not. They have mostly arisen in childhood because we have
been blocked in certain development stages. The main blockages, as
shown in this publication, are fixed ideals, prohibitions, strange
absolutizations (sA).
In most cases these are from parents who are blocked or fixed in
similar places. Mostly unconsciously, for fear or other reasons
the parents or a parent did not dare to develop freely and
self-confidently at these points and that´s why they blocked the
development of the child. If the child dares new ways, it comes
to fear or even rejection of the parents. The normal development
in this sphere is blocked and can remain so for decades also
unnoticed blocked. But if the person in question comes
into a life phase or situation where he faces a problem at this
blocked level, he/she will behave accordingly to the "mental
age" in which he/she was blocked - thus like a small, helpless
child. Now comes a crucial point: We can accept this situation
or we cannot accept it. We usually do the latter. We do not
accept our unloved childlike behaviors, repress them or, worst
of all, we fight them and want to exterminate them but they are
parts of us. We want to kill the little child in us. We have
often accused our parents that they loved us too little - and do
not even notice the tragedy that we are now perhaps even worse
with ourselves. What can you do?
We should do what we can do with our own children but never have
learned with us: We should try to accept and to love the
fearful, helpless, evil child within us. We should take it by
the hand and accompany it slowly and patiently into the world,
which is so frightening.
This means that in situations where we "failed", we should try
to be with us. In these cases, the 'paradoxical' attempt is
quite efficient to play deliberately the role of failure,
disgust, pig, or the like. Intentionally and upright (!).
Note: One difficulty of eliminating the blockade is that the
blockade is not only a hindrance but also a protection of the
helpless child from the threat. Try to take the risk!
It will help a religious person to feel accepted in these
situations completely as a child of God. God does not demand
that we react always adult.
Neurotic play of
sadomasochism: He submits to the domina and thus becomes
dependent on her. At the same time, she is dependent on his
payment. Each is thus the dependent ruler and the dependent
object of the other at the same time.
→ Neurotic happiness and satisfaction, neurotic balance and
neurotic stability. Also: shorter luck and longer bad luck.
The strange Self (sS) gives a person a certain
base which is differently wide: from the narrow burr up to the
bigger width which never reaches, however, the width and
stability of the real Self. As long as this person is on the
sS base and does not leave this, he stands sure. Yes, he can
say himself with pride that he has created it, this higher
position compared with other people. If the person leaves,
however, this sS base - and this is exact in the point where
he does not fulfill the demands of the strange Selves any more
- then he will slip off into the negative sphere. It begins a
slipping or a dropping to which the affected person is
delivered more or less and which stands, besides, in no
relation to the defectiveness of his behavior. It becomes a
self-running. Most mental disorders are found in such
autodynamical and mostly self-destructive processes.
If somebody stands with both legs on real Itself, it can
go, figuratively spoken, also down, then, however, it is a
descent with which the person concerned loses not the footing
but keeps always firm ground under the feet.
People who climb the "strange Self-summit" live under durable
compulsion: „You must come up higher, you must reach this, you
must become better“ - everywhere `must'. If the summit is
reached under self-abandonment, height drunkenness, however,
becomes soon fear - but the descent is forbidden. It seems
like the loss of self-esteem. The summit must be hold - in
spite of fear, in spite of an immense effort and in spite of
increasing cold and loneliness. Besides, it would be much
easier for us to trust our real self-(God) but then the kick
is absent.
Or: too much consideration
and love.
At the end of her life, a couple is astonished that both of
them, despite the utmost consideration, had been given the part
of the bread roll , which they did not want. How did it come?
The man always wanted the upper part of the bun. But because he
loved his wife very much and thought that she wanted the upper
part as well, he preferred the lower one.
However, she wanted, actually, always the lower one but because
also she wanted to give him the better one, she said, she wants
the upper one. Everybody thus gave to the other from a wrong
consideration what he wanted, actually, himself - with the
result that both got this what they did not want or did not get
both what they wanted, actually. But it would have been easier a
lot.
In the normal psychical
development, we go through the phases of the adaptation, the
anti-position and finally of detachment. We all are blocked in
this development more or less and shy. On the way to solve these
blockings, there are many obstacles, seduction and traps.
One of the biggest traps is the following: At last, we believe,
we have parted from our parents. At last, we are no longer
following their love and recognition. At last, we have looked
through them and are shocked at how weak, timid, flawed, and
even evil they are. We now know which mistakes we cannot make
with our children now.
But one day we see like in a mirror and see with horror how
similar we have remained to our parents. We are, as in the case
of the mirror image, exactly different, mirrored but therefore
still dependent.
But the actual great trap is not this realization but if we
condemn ourselves. I wish my readers that they do not. If they
do not, it also means that they stop condemning their parents.
At the points where we are
fixed, where we have absolutized something, the story of
the plus 30 and minus 70 percent will come across.
You can fix yourself on everything. For example, on sex or
success - which is the case with many men.
The inner, often unconscious motto is: I must necessarily have
sex or success. Only then I am happy. It is not the mistake when
men want sex and success, the mistake is when they depend on it.
What is happening?
If he concerned is fixed to 1oo% achievement but reaches only
30, he loses the 3o% satisfaction too but experiences
unfortunately 7o% minus.
A patient had a dream: He went with a heavy suitcase through a strange town and searched lodging. Suddenly he tripped, the suitcase fell down and its contents poured forth on the street. In amazement, he found out that the things which had liked there on the street not his but they of his parents were. He let everything lie, and went free in his ways. He had understood that the suitcase at all had not been his "thing".
If we are programmed on the
positive strange Absolutes and must fulfill whose demands, then
we get speed like on a rail. If we do not fulfill the demands
because we can no longer fulfill them or no longer want, we come
from the rail on the gravel.
Rail or grit, everything or nothing, black or knows, properly or
wrong and nothing in between, that are then the formulae.
Then it will be difficult to find or create normal ways or
meadows in this area.
My wife has got a new book
and instead of going to bed with me, she reads the whole night.
Is this the sign of a lack of love or great love?
Lacking love perhaps because she prefers the book to me.
But it is big love, perhaps because she considers me so generous
that she can do it all.
We have lost paradise through
our sins. We try to put ourselves in the place of God and eat
from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. That is, We have
tied ourselves to the leg, which is too hard for us. Instead to
relativize the question of good and evil, we have submitted to
it and are now condemned to do the good and to let the evil. We
should not have done this stress. (See also `theodicy´)
We should live in the center of our lives paradise again - (in
the core) beyond good and evil. (It is easiest with Jesus, I
believe).
One prostitute to another:
The men are all pigs. They want only one thing: sex.
One suitor to another: the prostitutes are all pigs. They want
only the one thing: money.
Because my last two patients
fell out, I came at home one hour too soon. Instead of joy, I
see slight horror on the face of my wife because, as I learned
later, she had not yet ready the meal. But I did not expect that
at all - on the contrary, it does not matter to me.
I am now offended because she has not rejoiced at my coming, and
even more because she seems to me to be under the impression
that I, like a despot, demand immediate punctual food.
She feels hurt because I've told her that she was not happy
about my coming and even more about it because it seems that I
do not care when the food comes to the table and I do not value
their efforts.
A neurotic solution that went through with the head would be
that I would never come home too soon, so that this conflict
does not even arise. And I often take such neurotic solutions
because they create greater relief in the short term.
© by T. Oettinger, 2003-2022, German edition/2017
[1] 1. 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.
[2] For the sake of simplicity, nothingness and nothing, as well as strange, foreign and alien are used as synonyms here, whilst 0 frequently represents s0 . [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[3] Not to be confused with the Freudian `Id´.
[4] That includes the existential themes of faith, love, hope, faithfulness, dignity, trust, devotion, comfort, loneliness, despair, guilt, forgiveness, hopelessness, dying and death. Similar K. Jaspers: Science is important in psychiatry but the elimination of philosophy for psychiatry is "disastrous." (p. 643)
[5] A common statement may serve as an example: The assertion that the parents' love is good for their children is credible but cannot be proven, since it is impossible to prove love.
[6] Karl Kraus: Nachts (Zeit); in: G. Fieguth: Deutsche Aphorismen, Reclam, Stuttgart 1978, p 227, resp. https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Karl_Kraus.
[7] I 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.
[8] In 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.
[9] 1.
"Psyche" or "soul" is the personal form of the psychical Relevant
(pR) .
2. A solitary "R"
stands for Relative.
[10]E.g., see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structuralism, 4, 2017.
[11] Cit. by H. Cibulka: Tagebücher, Halle (Saale), 1976,
p. 137. Emphasis by me.
[12] Abbreviation: Relatives = R. I deliberately set the R in italics in order to distinguish this symbol from the abbreviation which denotes the (psychical) Relevant (R).
[13] This is based on the following quote from Novalis: "We
seek the unconditioned everywhere and find only things."
(NS II: 412, Nr. 1).
[14] B. Brecht in `Dreigroschenoper: ”Chow comes first; morality second.”
[15] 1. 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.]
[16] F. Nietzsche: „There are more idols than realities in the world ...“ (Twilight of the Idols).
[17] 1. 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).
[18] Thus, 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.
[19] 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'
[20] I use the terms `positive' and `pro' as well as the terms `negative' and `contra' synonymously.
[21] The 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'.)
[22] Unless otherwise stated, this is about the first-rate Relative.
[23] One might formulate more precisely: the Relative is ultimately only relatively good to prove, whereas the Absolute is absolutely believable.
[24] Relative 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.
[25] de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolischer_Interaktionismus
[26] 1. 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.
[27] Logik Wörterbuch p. 189
[28] Reminder: 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.
[29] Since vicious cycles occur in the relative range, they are best resolved from an + absolute range. (See later)
[30] Bleuler E. Lehrbuch der Psychiatrie. Springer-Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1983, p. 132.
[31] What I denote the `choice of the Absolute´ or `primary virtues´.
[32] In 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.
[33] 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) not.
[34] God1 is for me
a `first-rate personal subject' also.
[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[35] Meyers Großes Taschenlexikon, keyword: Subjekt-Objekt-Problem, 4. edition, 1992.
[36] Y. Cohen: `Das misshandelte Kind´, Brandes und Apsel-Verlag, Frankfurt a.M., 2004, p.31.
[37] Keyword: „Healthismus“.
[38] S.a. dynamic between Pro-sA and Contra-sA.
[39] Thus Spoke Zarathustra: Part IV: Chapters 10–20 (p. 3)
[40] The term `I´ stands mostly for the first-rate form and the term `Ego´ stands mostly fora second-rate form.
[43] Frank A. Gerbode in http://www.forum.exscn.net/showthread.php?5935-Introduction-to-Metapsychology
[44] In this publication, the terms 'psyche' and
'soul' are used synonymously.
[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own
conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions
of official theology.]
[45]
The term “personal” means that the form, dynamics or
quality of a matter are related to a particular person.
Examples of "personal verbs" are words such as: to identify, commit, allow, believe, feel etc.
[46] As stated in the Summary table.
[47] I would like to emphasize again that, whereas I do not regard language as a person's exclusive way to express themselves, I consider it to be the most important and nuanced way of expression.
[48] 1. In the place of the terms: `person' or `psyche', the
notion: `I' could be inserted.
2. Person and psyche are
used synonymously here.
[49] There are two dimensions if we look merely at the absolute and relative dimensions; however, there are three dimensions if the nothingness is considered to be a separate dimension.
[50] This stands In contrast to the `It' - the absolutized Relative - which dominates a person and will be discussed later.
[51] A nothingness which is personal² however, seems to be exclusively assigned to the second reality.
[52] Point 1-3 adapted from articles in: Brockhaus Encyclopedia, Mannheim, 1996, keyword `self '
[53] A similar definition can be found in http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self?s=t (Philosophy)
[54] „Borderline-Störungen und
pathologischer Narzissmus.“ Suhrkamp,
Frankfurt, 1978, p 358.
Similarly in G. O.
Gabbard: Psychodynamic Psychiatry in Clinical Practice, Amarican
Psychiatric Publishing, Inc. 2005, p. 45.
[55]1. A similar definition can be
found in A Dictionary of Psychology (4 ed.)
2. Nuclear Self and core Self are the same in this
publication.
[56] Tilmann Moser by Alice Miller: „Das Drama des begabten Kindes" in DER SPIEGEL 29/1979 of 16.07.1979, p. 141.
[58] Rudolf p. 63.
[60] Schischkoff: keyword `Entelechie´.
[61] In this study, this relationship has been characterized before as a loving relationship between God and people.
[62] By Self is meant below only positive Self, unless otherwise indicated.
[63] The word `alone´ also points to the core self, to the uniqueness of the person.
[64] I hope these examples are just as obvious in the English language like in German.
[65] I have distinguished not strictly between the actual Self and the I-Self in this section.
[66] For people with pronounced heteronomy, it is hard to believe they could be loved for their own sake. They yearn indeed for this, but also believe that they have to prove that they are worthy of love. In parallel, they demand that others prove their love. The strange-self says: You have to earn love. The self says: Love is free.
[67] This is what the proverb says: Catch not a shadow and lose the substance = Do not live by the substance.
[68] The terms spirit and self, I use interchangeably here in and in the positive connotation.
[69] The last 3 quotes
from: Brockhaus Encyclopedia,
Mannheim 1996th.
Very detailed see: Jerome
D. Levin: Theories of
the Self, Taylor & Francis Inc., 1992 and
Fllorin Voicu, The Self and Therapy (42)
THE
SELF AND THERAPY |
Fllorin Voicu - Academia.edu.
[70] See also S. Freud: "The Ego is not master in one's own house." Freud described only what I called second-rate personal, the first-rate was unknown to him.
[71] God is still more than the + Absolute.
[72] G. Herder calls man the "first freedman" (Phil.TB)
[73] This `absolute attitude of the I´ is similar to the 'absolute I' of Johann Gottlieb Fichte and the `absolute spirit´of Hegel but not identical to both. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[74] I postulate here the priority of a free will towards
the Absolute instead of a conscious act of faith.
[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own
conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions
of official theology.]
[75] It is not without reason that people have decision-making difficulties without this free 'metaposition'.
[80] The term "metapsychiatry" is used in American English
with other connotation. This meaning is hardly used in German.
"Metapsychiatry" is a term there for a spiritual teaching and form
of psychotherapy developed by the psychiatrist Thomas Hora
(1914-1995) → https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metapsychiatry
.
As a psychotherapeutic method, however, this is not the same as the
metapsychiatry I described but the approach of Thomas Hora, who
tries to apply psychotherapy to spiritual, religious, is also
helpful. However, I have significant differences to his opinions, as
he introduced them in his well-known book "Beyond the Dream".
[81] 1. In this publication, the term 'ideology' has the
meaning of a dogmatic worldview. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideology
. Or, in simpler terms, ideologies are absolutized attitudes.
2. I will discuss the role of the negative Absolute (‒A)
later.
[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own
conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions
of official theology.]
[82] More about it in: strange-Self .
[83] 1. These preliminary statements are further elaborated
in the course of work.
2. The reality strange dominant I call for the sake of variety times
`It´ or `sA´.
3. As said - this `It´ is not identical with S. Freud´s
`Id´.
[84] +A and ‒A.
[85] 1. The
actual absolutely Negative
(‒A) is not at issue here.
2. The terms strange and second rate (or ²) in
this script have the
same meaning. I use sometimes
one, sometimes the other term,
so that the reading is
not too boring.
Synonyms are also the terms actual and
first-rate;`ns' stands
for` new, strange´; BLQC for being, life, quality,
connections. Further see `Metapsychology´.
[86] I am referring primarily in the following chapters to the absolutization of Relative in negation of the real Absolute. I follow so the schedule listed later no. 1.
[87] `Ideology´ is a keyword in this publication for all inversive attitudes.
[88] More precisely, it is, of course, only the words that are relevant to man.
[89] W. Jung: Grammatik der deutschen Sprache, p 46.
[90] Just look at how often people use the word 'must' without being forced.
[91] Duden 1973, KZ 1148.
[92] W. Jung, p. 337.
[93] Freud called the German `Es´ in Latin `Id´.
The term `It' used by me includes the Freudian Id but it is however
much broader.
[94] Georg Groddeck, The Book of the It, Vision Press (1979 ed),
[95] Klemperer about language in general: "Language writes and thinks not only for me, it also distracts my feeling, it controls my entire spiritual being ..." (p.24)
[96] WPI = world, person and I.
[97] 1. Synonym used: pro = +, contra = ‒. 2. sA = strange
Absolute.
3. I also count to the pro-sA the asA = absolutistic sA (also
hyper-A); To contra-sA, I also count the rsA = relativistic sA (=
strange relativistic one), which I will discuss later.
[98] No wonder we become confused or even paranoid when we
are "infested" by them.
[99] + sA does not mean that the person concerned always feels the corresponding + sA as beneficial, such as duty * - but as for him correct.
[100] Elsewhere I have pointed out and discussed the peculiarity of man that he owns an Absolute.
[101] The positive misabsolutization is always a partial denial of the actual reality because its negative parts are omitted!
[102] Kant: `Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten.,
Anaconda Verlag 2008 (Wikipedia, 2012).
resp.https://genius.com/Immanuel-kant-groundwork-of-the-metaphysics-of-morals-chap-i-annotated
[103] I.e.every evil except the −A.
[104] Example Faust to Mephisto: " In your Nothingness, I hope, the All I will recover." (Faust's second part, Act 1)
[105] The vulnerability-stress model (which for the purposes of this paper describes the impact of adverse sA) would complement the one hand by a availability-seduction model (the impact of positive sA group) and on the other by a quasi negationability-negation-model (which indicates the impact of s0).
[106] Exactly one would have denote the following "+A" as "Also+A", for only God alone is the real, primary or absolute + A - if you wanted here at all "define".
[107] Absolute promises are not: health, material possessions, success, etc. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[108] The * should make the absolutization clear again.
[109] R.M. Rilke: “And we, animals of the soul, confused by everything in us, not yet ready for nothing; we grazing souls: do we not implore the Allotter by night to grant us the not-face which belongs with our darkness?“ Das Karussell, Reclam, p24. Translated in: http://hilobrow.com/2011/11/23/early-60s-horror-4/
[110] 1. Strictly speaking, the `all´ is also divided in pro and
contra - but appears as a counterpart of nothing first in one
piece.
2. This also means that there are three main interpretations and
nine specific interpretations of any W²-situation.
[111] See if necessary in the unabridged version.
[112] The connection between `Co-pro' and` pro' symbolizes a pact between a pro-form and a co-form (`co' = together with).
[113] Note: As I have mentioned, I mean with `ideology´
not only the well-known political ideologies but also ideologized
familial and individual attitudes.
[114] Since I assume that some readers only read the one or the other section, I have repeated here the most important.
[115] Parallel to this, a chaotization, takes place.
[116] The equality of the strange Self and the personal It is all the more justified if one also regards the non-Self as a kind of strange Self.
[117] Wöller, Wolfgang und Johannes Kruse: Tiefenpsychologisch fundierte Psychotherapie. Schattauer, Stuttgart, 2005. Or in: Reifungsprozesse und fördernde Umwelt, Fischer-V., Frankfurt a.M. 1985.
[118] E.g.
• M. Foucault: "No truth about the self is without the sacrifice of
the self." p 324
• F. Nietzsche: “I love all
who are like heavy drops falling one by one out of the dark cloud
that lowers over man: they herald the coming of the lightning, and
succumb as heralds.” Cit. `Thus Spoke Zarathustra´; Ch. 5.
[119] Personal It and strange Self are named synonymously here too.
[120] 1. A strange I-self forms, figuratively speaking, a
kind of new strange person or homunculus in concerned.
Is it any wonder if, people hear voices, for example in this
situation?
2. A one-sidedly science-oriented psychology /
psychiatry is especially in danger of making man like an 'object' of
his investigations and therapy.
[121] The changes are so experienced without to be so. In fact, the strange-Self is only similar to the Self but it is experienced as if the strange-Self is the actual Self.
[123] Ibid, 2016
[124] Examples: Directions in Humanism, Anthroposophy, The Work of Byron Katie etc.
[125] Literature in Mertens, Peters and under keyword "mixed drives".
[126] To offer some variety, I speak sometimes only of It and sometimes of It/sA if I want to emphasize the role of an It-part in a person.
[127] I am writing first-rate realite deliberately in the singular and second-rate realities in the plural because these exist so.
[128] 1. The terms `reality 'and` world' are often used
synonymously and abbreviated `W'. Otherwise the concept of reality
is superior to that of the world.
I could not abbreviate reality with `R' because that
abbreviation stands for the Relative.
2. second-rate is not equivalent to the meaning of first-rate
Relative.
[129] As I
read after the conception of this publication, C.G. Jung also speaks
of different realities, whereby his concept of "second reality"
resembles the concept of "first-rate reality" used here, and vice
versa, his concept of "first reality" resembles the concept of
"second-rate realities" used here.
(See also B. Staehelin: 'Trust and Second Reality').
Also the term of the
second worlds used in general language usage says the same thing.
[130] free footnote
[131] This ambiguity of our existence has been portrayed authoritatively by H. v. Hofmannsthal (for example, in his "Chandos Brief"), Novalis, and more recently P. Auster.
[132] Keyword `homunkulus´.
[133] See Summary table column E.
[134] The personal It I often call
only 'It' in this chapter.
As mentioned: It is typically for all Its (like the p It too)
that they are made of two or three contradicting 'parts': as
`dyad´ of all and nothing and as `triad´ of a pro-, a contra-
and a 0-part.
[135] For the person-thing-inversion, see later.
[136] `DM aspects': the 7 dimension aspects are meant.
[137] Instead of the rule of the It over the person, one can
also speak of the rule of the objects * (of the absolutized
objects) over the person as subject. (See later).
Th.W. Adorno has dealt with this also. "Objects" can also mean the
rule of the material over the spiritual. So also the rule of the
dependent over the independent.
[138] In the case of the second-rate, which the person exchanges with his prime, one always finds part and opposite and 0.
[139] But also pacts, see elsewhere.
[140] An important symptom in schizophrenia, see there.
[141] Schizophrenic people experience often like that.
[142] It is therefore not surprising that some people hear voices because the strange Ego represents a kind of new strange person or homunculus in the affected person.
[143] Likewise, one can also speak of a reversal of the living and the unliving or the personal and the unpersonal with similar consequences. This includes also the perpetrator-victim reversal - i.e. the victim is considered the perpetrator and the perpetrator as the victim.
[144] These characteristics, as also mentioned below, are found mainly in the schizophrenic psychoses.
[145] Blaise Pascal cit. by Lorenz Marti: Wie schnürt ein Mystiker seine Schuhe?; Herder 2006, p. 92.
[146] Otherwise, P becomes to contrary, or to 0. See later too.
[147] The * is to reiterate that it is absolutized.
[148] For didactic reasons I go out from the first person singular.
[149] Hyper-ego has a different meaning here than Freud´s Super-ego.
[150] H. von Hofmannsthal, for example, speaks of the
"threats," the "temptations," and the "seductions of life," which
the ego desires to escape from "inner solitude and loneliness."
(Cit. by Epilogue to "The Stories", TB Insel-Verlag, p.378),
Ibid., p.380, he speaks of the danger that the ego will lose love.
[151] Absolutely is only the split of +A and ‒A.
[152] For the sake of change, I use different terms for a
situation. For example, The terms 'worlds', 'realities', or
'systems' are essentially synonymous.
They can be personal or non-personal.
[153] https://academyofideas.com/2015/05/introduction-to-kierkegaard-the-religious-solution/ , 2019.
[154] Boris Pasternak: „Doktor Schiwago“.
[155] WPI means World, person and I.
[156] See also the juxtaposition of contradictions in schizophrenic psychoses.
[157] W is here also for WPI alltogether.
[158] S. A. Tolstoja „Tagebücher, I. Band. p 121, Rütten und Loening, Berlin 1988.
[159] Edit. by Ludwig Völker: „Komm, heilige Melancholie“ Reclam, Stuttgart 1983.
[160] Hints:
1. I use the terms `strange´ and 'second-rate' (²) synonymously.
2. Where it is clear that it is a second-rate issue, I leave away
the label `²' frequently for the sake of simplicity.
[161] sA and It I use synonymously here. I remember: It consists of three opposing sA (+ sA, ‒sA and 0).
I write `sA/ It´ if I want to emphasize the strange character of the Absolute and `It/sA´ if it does not matter.
[162] ` Absolutisms' functions here as a collective concept for ideologies that have absolutized a mental attitude.
[163] In psychiatric terminology, a complex is often stated as consisting of 2 opposites, e.g. Father Son C. or whores-saint-C. etc.
[164] Peters, Lexikon Psychiatrie…,see Bibliography..
[165] More exactly: I label the first-rate P with P¹, the second rate often only with P or P² if the connotation is important.
[166] Every sin is like a two-edged sword. Sir 21.4.
[167] I write often for the sake of simplicity instead of P² only P.
[168] See also Summary table columns O and P.
[169] Sven Olaf Hoffmann: Neurotische Störungen und Psychosomatische Medizin; Schattauer, 2009. p 52.
[170] Cit. by UH Peters, see Bibliography.
[173] As written: the contra-sA is the biggest enemy of pro-sA .
[174] I.D. Yalom „Die Schopenhauer-Kur“ btb-Verlag München. 2006. (Translated by me).
[175] „Psychical Bermuda Triangle“
[176] Therefore, all parties involved are more or less right in conflict of interests.
[177] In the following, I usually speak of the strange Self
(sS) or the strange Pseudo-Absolute (sA).
One could also speak of the 'It' because of the cooperation of
several sA.
[178] Synonyms: pact, wrong friendship, symbiosis.
[179] As I said, in this example, father or mother themselves (and what they represent) or else a person may form a wrong center point in the system.
[180] Quotation from M. Selvini Palazzoli. The quote lifts very emphatically the central role of what I call strange Absolute (sA).
[181] The unadapted member usually comes into a counter-role (e.g., black sheep) which restores a certain system equilibrium. Or it is liquidated, brought to zero. To compensate, however, an external enemy image can also serve.
[182] Instead of "man" or "woman" or any other relationship such as between mother and son, father and daughter, brother and sister or anybody else or something may be.
[183] See in particular: Jürg Willi: `Die Zweierbeziehung´, Rowohlt TB 1975/ 2012.
[184] From a religious point of view, relationships that are
not based on +A are particularly vulnerable.
[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own
conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions
of official theology.]
Why? I believe we human beings are designed for an absolute, unconditional love, which nobody but only God can give us but this is also not a guarantee for a happy relationship.
[185] Jürg Willi: `Die Zweierbeziehung´, Rowohlt, p. 14
[186] If P puts a matter above itself and identifies with it, then it means attacking on its own person from this point of view if someone attacks the thing.
[187] Of course, not all people are always good with others. But no one can judge from the outside about the motivation of the others. Therefore, it is wise to suppose initially a positive motivation of all system members, without excluding a negative one..
[188] Elsewhere, unconscious emergency solutions are mentioned →`Emergency by disease´.
[191] Relative negative can come also from God1 and from the ‒A relative positive but God1 aims ultimately at the + A and the ‒A has the negative to the goal. Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.
[192] Heimann s. Bibliography.
[193] E. Bleuler s. Bibliography p. 113.
[194] For the sake of simplicity, this is only shown differently and not in opposite directions.
[195] The numbering is not exactly the same as for the other
individual aspects.
Similar to spreading and compression: generalization and abstraction.
[196] S. Bibliography.
[197] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_disorder, 2016. See also the opinion of A.R. Brunoni below.
[198] As I explained, I distinguish between first-rate and
second-rate ( "neurotic") diseases.
If I do not specifically label the term 'disease', then it is about
the latter, second-rate diseases, which are in the foreground in
this section.
[200] I emphasize that extra because there are people who see a sense in every suffering, in every illness. The rape itself is absolutely senseless - the resulting suffering is from a theoretical perspective, perhaps `only' almost absolutely senseless. At 99.9% of senselessness, a "sense " could be that we as the person concerned recognize the dangerousness of such ‒A and protect us and our children from it. I believe; all symptoms appear very nonsensical when they are the result of other people's mistakes.
[201] U.H. Peters 1999.
[202] The person has advantages by the Its only in the short term but in the long run more disadvantages. What Freud specifically said about the repression ("Preservation of a repression presupposes a constant expenditure of force, and its abolition means economically a saving.") (https://www.offenesbuch.com/g119506 ) - one could formulate in general: "The maintenance of an It-system (second-rate system) costs the person a lot of strength that he/she would save on in a first-rate system. "
[203] Again and again I have experienced how disease (even cancer) can lead to a great (oversize?) feeling of freedom among some affected persons. Perhaps also because we did not take the liberty when we were still healthy, which we now receive, albeit at a high price. Perhaps it was also because we saw that what we were perhaps too afraid of was not so much to fear. Or, religiously, the experience that God is stronger than all illness and death. Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.
[204] We are afraid of the ‒sA, we can also be afraid of the F0 but even before the + sA we can fear (for example, that we lose a + sA or that it does not keep what it promises or that it is too expensive).
[205] I have the impression that we often shift the most negative existential problem, our death, to a different, milder level, namely that of the disease because we can thus prepare ourselves to death in a more tolerable way and, furthermore, that we still have everything under our control but, at the same time, the price of the need to continue the disease.
[206] When we are sick, we need no longer to fear the loss of our health, or experience it as liberation, no longer needing to take care of it.
[207] Translation by Maxine Chernoff and Paul Hoover.
[208] Undoubtedly many clinically healthy people are much crazier than many patients. How is that possible? I believe that these people will not be ill because they do not call into question their morbid attitudes and shift their disadvantages to others. (See also `Emergency A´ in the Psychotherapy section).
[209] See also relevant sections on inversions as general causes in the chapter Metapsychiatry.
[210] In this publication, I neglect the role of the -‒A as an important cause of disease intentionally because it escapes a therapeutic influence.
[211] This, of course, does not mean the abandonment of such symptomatic therapies (see corresponding chapter).
[212] I do not believe that the embryo or the newborn is already completely identified with the mother but has an innate absolutely unique (core) self that is different from those of his parents and all other people.
[213] As I have mentioned, I sometimes label, to emphasize the mis-absolutized with an asterisk (*).
[214] A process which most clearly occurs during puberty.
[215] There are many parallels between what is happening in a person´s inside and between the family members, groups, or countries. In principle, they are the same processes.
[216] Tilmann Moser über Alice Miller: Das Drama des begabten Kindes; DER SPIEGEL 29/1979 p. 141.
[217] Horney, Karen: Neurosis and human growth; Quoted by I. Yalom.
[218] I recall once again that the parents here are just as typical representatives of the environment. In individual circumstances it can be a matter of quite different influences and, of course, a multitude of influences.
[219] "Normal" is strictly speaking "ideal".
[220] The Oedipus complex described by S. Freud is only one of many possible complexes. It arises when the mother and child are symbiotically connected with the father. It is normal for parents in early childhood to adopt certain absolute positions for the child. However, if they are divided into opposite ( + / - or 0) positions, this is pathogenic. Fortunately, the influence of both parents already means a certain healthy relativization that facilitates the detachment of the child.
[221] Most of the time one or the other dominates.
[222] Our situation after we lost the paradise.
[223] R. Schmidt (ed.) in: http://www.psychotiker.de/psychose.html 10/2015.
[224] Jaspers, Karl: Allgemeine Psychopathologie. Springer Verlag Berlin-Heidelberg-New-York, 1973.
[225] In this comparison one could call the + Absolute as
the best common denominator, or the best "solver".
If one done the Relative
however to this denominator, then the problem is unsolvable.
[226] Cit. by A. Kielholz „Psychotherapie und Seelsorge“ Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft Darmstadt, 1977, p 114.
[227] `Der Neurologe und Psychiater´ 11/04.
[228] R.D: Laing, The Divided Self, p19
[229] I do not discuss the possible causes by means of estrangements (genes), since they are not a subject, one can hardly change anything in them and they are, in my opinion, over-estimated.
[230] The theoretical questions of causality cannot be discussed here again (look up elsewhere). It seems to me important in this context for the therapy, that each individual, so also the patient, can become the primary cause of positive changes and thus break through existing chains of causality.
[231] From the foreword to C. Scharfetters book: `Schizophrene Menschen´, Urban u. Schwarzenberg, München-Weinheim, 1986.
[232] In the Summary table the various aspects are summarized.
[233] In the person I call the It also as a strange Self.
[234] Ronald D. Laing: `Das geteilte Selbst´. Kiepenheuer
und Witsch, Köln, 1983, p 65.
Manfred Bleuler: Klinik der schizophrenen Geistesstörungen. In
Psychiatrie
der Gegenwart, Springer V., 1971.
[235] See also the theory of `positive disintegration` of
Kazimierz Dabrowski with which I only partly agree. Dąbrowski,
K. (1966):
"The Theory of Positive Disintegration". International Journal
of Psychiatry 2: 229–44.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positive_Disintegration
[237] Eugen Bleuler: Lehrbuch der Psychiatrie 1975.
[238] In the foreword by Bateson et al. „Schizophrenie und Familie“, Suhrkamp-Verlag. 1978, p 9.
[239] Musalek, Michael: Die unterschiedliche Herkunft von Schizophrenien und ihre philosophischen Grundlagen. Fortschr Neurol Psychiat, 73 (Sonderheft 1), 16 – 24, 2005.
[240] Aus https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_D._Laing 12/ 2015.
[241] F. Nietzsche: Über das Pathos der Wahrheit. München 1954, Band 3, p 267-272.
[242] P with clinical delusion are often the victims of healthy people with non clinical delusions whose price the victims pay.
[243] Bleuler E.: Lehrbuch der Psychiatrie. Springer, Berlin-Heidelberg-New York, 1983.
[244] For further options see Summary table column Q.
[245] I ignore the possible causes by ‒A.
[246] The third sude - the 0 - remains unmentioned here.
[247] As a reminder: * means an absolutization of something Relative.
[248] S. Freud saw it in a similar way.
[249] Someone who appears like a clown has depressions that he combats with his clowning.
[250] The ideals should serve but not dominate us.
[251] Aus https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zwangsst%C3%B6rung, 2/2016.
[252] Peters, Uwe-Hendrik: Lexikon Psychiatrie, Psychotherapie, medizinische Psychologie, 5. edition Urban & Fischer, 1999.
[253] Because everything that has been absolutized can become a compulsion.
[254] Susanne Walitza et al., Deutsches Ärzteblatt Heft 11, 2011 p 173-179.
[255] Why one does not comfort the sick girl with the hope that the deceased grandfather lives on in heaven. Or, for the sake of completeness, if evidence of sexual assaults of the grandfather exist, which could also trigger a compulsive symptom, that one may believe that there is a superior justice (God), which will bring both in order: the abuses of the offender as well as any existing guilt feelings of the victim. Of course, such instructions should not replace other psychotherapeutic measures but supplement them. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[256] "Working with pathological dynamics is not within the competence of a counseling pastor and is therefore deliberately excluded." Wilfried Veeser: `Skript des Seelsorge-Grundkurs 1.Block, 2007´.
[258] Ref. German → Luise
Reddemann, Wolfgang Wöller Michaela Huber, Ulrich Sachse u.a.;
English: Danielle Knafo (Ed.) Living With
Terror, Working With Trauma. Jason Aronson, Inc. New York, 2004.
[259] For reasons of simplicity, I will at times speak of meta-therapy rather than meta-psychotherapy. See later also about `Primary Psychotherapy´.
[260] - `Worldview (Weltanschauung)´ is the general term here
which includes mindset, religion, ideology, conception of the world,
philosophy, attitude, outlook on life, etc. These concepts may be
either defined or are private and undefined. By way of variation, at
times, I use the one term, and, at other times, a different name.
- As described in the section Metapsychology,
worldviews are a matter of faith.
[261] How
is it possible for a psychotherapist, who is trained in rational
thinking, to understand irrational ways of thinking as are so
frequently found amongst those suffering from psychological
illnesses? By the example of Freud, Balthasar Staehelin wrote the
following: “It was perhaps Freud's apparent compulsion to be a
servant of such scientific bias and exclusivity which drove him to
make possible his greatest mistake: He was no longer able to listen
to a patient impartially but only heard that which was spoken as a
confirmation of his philosophical convictions concerning the nature
of humankind.“ (p. 22)
[262] This is not, of course, to diminish the significance of the other subjects mentioned above; however, to discuss even a majority of them would be to go beyond the scope of this study.
[263] See also the criticism voiced by G. Vinnai: “The Exile of Criticism from Science: Psychology in the Universities” www.vinnai.de/kritik.html, 2013.
[264] Johannes Wiltschko: “Eine Metapsychotherapie als
Kontrapunkt zum gegenwärtigen Trend.” (Meta-psychotherapy as a
counterpoint to the current trend)
In: https://www.daf-focusing.de/wp-content/uploads/Wiltschko-Metapsychotherapie-20101.pdf
. However, I can only agree with some of the conclusions
which J. Wiltschko draws from this criticism.
[265] ebd.
[266] 2 Cor 3:6. Jesus had many critical words to say about such a Pharisaic spirit.
[267] 1.)
In my opinion, the legal system in Germany is undergoing a similar
development, in which, for reasons of the absolutization of random
paragraphs, some victims seem to receive less protection than the
offenders.
2.) The controlled economy in socialist states is a good example of
the consistent implementation of regulations based upon ideologies ,
which have driven out a great deal of good will.
[269] Freud, Sigmund, in: Das Unbehagen in der Kultur (Civilization And Its Discontents), 1930.
[270] By itself, the term `Evidenz´ in German means `unmittelbare Einsichtigkeit' (immediate intelligibility (Duden). However, the term Evidenz is often used erroneously to represent the English word `evidence´, which stands for proof or attestation. “Therefore, the German translation 'evidenzbasierte Medizin” is not a correct rendition of the English expression 'evidence-based medicine' ....”. (emphasis added). https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidenz 11/2013.
[271] Focus-Magazin No. 30/2011 p. 73.
[272] One can also speak of a fundamental perspective. (→ fundamental)
In this respect, I refer again to the theorem on
undecidability by K. Gödel.
[273] See L. Wittgenstein, Viktor Frankl and C.G. Jung, who refer to this expression, albeit with different emphases. Quote taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub_specie_aeternitatis. Similar F. Nietzsche: The philosopher should stand "on the widely spread wings of all time". (About the pathos of the truth).
[274] Is this an analogy to the inertial frame of reference in physics?
[275] As explained above, even the provable needs to be believed.
[276] See also parallels within existential philosophy.
Regarding the latter, it is important to generate an 'interpretation
of mankind as existence in the sense of an ultimate, irreducible
being ....´ (Brockhaus, keyword `Existenzphilosophie´).
See also to the term `fundamental.
[277] Example of a problem in society: All of us would like to receive the best medical care. However, our health care is embedded within a greater issue: What can the state afford without neglecting other important fields of action? The problems of the individual state, in turn, are embedded within those of the international community; and these, in turn, are embedded within the problems of humankind in general. This means that, in order to avoid implementing overly-expensive solutions or solutions which are established at the expense of other spheres of action, the most important solution of the first order will be to gain an overview of the big picture, a meta-position, and then to find relative solutions. Thus, it becomes also clear that it is not simply the healing of one or another illness that is at stake.
[278] Friedrich Nietzsche: said, “He who has a why to life can bear almost any how.”
Paul Watzlawick claimed that, psychologically speaking, a person
could not survive in a world that was not meaningful to him or her.
In addition, he said that the “loss or absence of a meaning in life was perhaps the
most common denominator in all forms of emotional distress....” Own translation of: Menschliche Kommunikation Bern
2000, cit. by Beatrix Gotthold and Christian Thies in: “Denn jeder sucht ein All” Reclam, Leipzig, 2003 p.85 ff.
[279] E.g. N.I. Kondakow: Wörterbuch der Logik; deb Verlag, Westberlin, 1978. Keyword `Gödel´.
[280] Albeit only in a limited way, the “W²-methods” can indeed serve to solve W²-problems if the
solution is found in the W²-hierarchy above the W²-problem.
Hierarchies of problems and hierarchies of
solutions: see unabridged German version.
[281] See:Watzlawick, P., J.H. Weakland, R. Fisch: Lösungen. Verlag Hans Huber Bern-Stuttgart-Wien, 1974.
[282]1. S. Freud 1930: Das Unbehagen in der Kultur; GW XIV, p.
441.
2. The previous recital
of Freud´s defense mechanisms originates from a citation which I
cannot locate at present.
[283] For example: Tony Nicklinson lived for 7 years with Locked-in-Syndrom. He felt condemned to a life which he perceived to be “uncomfortable, undignified and degrading”. In vain, he filed lawsuits at all official channels to be given the right to commit assisted suicide. Similarly, the British Diane Pretty, the Italian Eluana Englaro, who had been in a vigilant coma in a care home for 17 years following an accident etc.. I am well aware of the difficulties associated with such decisions, particularly in view of the background of euthanasia, however, I believe that the dogmatization of an orientation which, in itself, is correct and humane, that: `Every earthly life must be maintained and prolonged at any cost´ may become inhumane at a certain point. In this way, it seems also absurd to hear in the news that “doctors are fighting for the life of the erstwhile prime minister of Israel, Scharon, who has been in a coma for seven years (!)“, given that his condition has now (2014) deteriorated.
[284] This is my personal view of the positive Absolute, of God, which does not necessarily agree with some other Christian conceptions. See `Christian one-sidednesses and misinterpretations´. See also the passage on love in 1 Cor 13. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[285] Peter Möller in: http://www.philolex.de/weltansc.htm 3/2014.
[286] J.R. Peteet: `What is the Place of Clinicians’ Religious or
Spiritual Commitments inPsychotherapy? A Virtues-Based
Perspective´
New York 2013.
https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/rshm/files/what_is_the_place_of_clinicians_religious_or_spiritual_commitments_in_psychotherapy_a_virtues-based_perspective.pdf,.
Underlined by me.
Similarly, Fritz Mauthner claims
that “the worldview of a person depends on the general and
temporary condition of their soul.“
Quoted in Peter Möller, in: http://www.philolex.de/weltansc.htm
-3/2014, - whereby the reverse is also true.
[287] http://ezw-berlin.de/html/3_166 2/2016.
[288] 1. Precise bibliographical references: see bibliography.
2. Literal
quotations are denoted by quotation marks and the source is cited
separately.
[292] Schischkoff, keyword: Philosophie.
[293] http://www.geist-oder-materie.de/Philosophie/philosophie.html ,2014.
I shall only comment on some of the main aspects of
philosophical materialism.
[294] Following Schischkoff KW Materialismus.
[297] Peter Möller in: http://www.philolex.de/lenin.htm 2/2015.
I think, God is not in opposition to matter but to its
primacy. Even Jesus used saliva and sand (thus matter) to heal a
blind person. [Hint: I partly write God1
to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not
necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[298] See also the problem of the `Qualia´ - the subjective content of the experience of a mental state.
[299] This statement expresses what happens in general; in individual cases, there are those who make their life all too easy for themselves, at the expense of others.
[300] Matthias Krieg: “The materialist is short-sighted by nature.” (Verbal message).
[301] Predominately, materialism overall has the characteristics of a second-rate reality with its advantages and disadvantages. (See also the Summary table).
[302] Johann Wolfgang von Goethe: Faust II, Vers 4917 ff.
[303] Whilst idealists sit, rather, in ivory towers and might thus also allow life to pass by.
[304] From my viewpoint, this is ludicrous, since, contrary to all experience, such a “scientist” will consider himself to have proven that a person has no free will. (It is, of course, clear that a person's actions are not exclusively independent). Benjamin Libet: Haben wir einen freien Willen? in: Geyer: Hirnforschung und Willensfreiheit, 2004, p. 268-290.
[305] Erwin Schrödinger: Auszüge aus „Das arithmetische Paradoxon – Die Einheit des Bewusstseins". Quotations from Einstein and Schrödinger took from: http://www.thunemann.de/martin/gott/, 2015.
[306] Wolfgang Pauli: Physik und Transzendenz, Hans-Peter Dürr (Hrsg.), Bern u. a.: Scherz, 1986, p. 205.
[307] Evangelischer Erwachsenenkatechismus, Gütersloher Verlagshaus 6. edition 2000, p 60 und p. 13 (no further reference source).
[309] Quotating Arthur Eddington, from John Lennox: Hat die Wissenschaft Gott begraben? R. Brockhaus; 2. ed. Wuppertal 2002, p. 44.
[310] Gerhard Grössing: Die Information der Physik: Subjektal und objektal. In: http://www.nonlinearstudies.at/files/ggInformationDerPhysik.pdf p 6, 10/2013.
[311] Heinzpeter Hempelmann: Eine kritische Analyse der Reichweite und grenzenwissenschaftlicher Aussagen am Beispiel der Neurowissenschaften. In: http://heinzpeter-hempelmann.de/hph/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/%C3%A4pfel.pdf
[312] Chomsky, Noam: Language and Problems of Knowledge: The Managua Lectures, Lecture 5, 1988, p. 159.
[313] Aus: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kognition 2/ 2014. (Emphasis mine).
[314] "Twilight of the Idols", Part 2, Section 36.
[315] Taken from: www.duden.de
[316] Großes Fremdwörterbuch KW `Funktion´.
[317]According to Schischkoff, KW `Funktion´.
[319] Meyers Großes Taschenlexikon.
[320] Schischkoff, KW: Funktionär; s. Bibliography .
[321] Both bibliographical references in H. Schauenburg, Deutsches Ärzteblatt https://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf.asp?id=64412, 2009.
[322] According to Schischkoff, KW Idealismus (Idealism) .
[323] This section discusses the so-called idealist humanism. With regard to `materialist humanism‘, the points made in the section on `Materialism’ are also valid here.
[324] https://www.uni-due.de/einladung/Vorlesungen/epik/humanismus.htm, 2013. (2016 editon is no longer available).
[325] According to Schischkoff, KW ` Humanismus‘ (Humanism).
[326] Wikipedia KW Humanismus, 1/2016. See also http://ezw-berlin.de/html/3_166.php `Humanismus´ (Humanism).
[327] Taken from: Arnold Keyserling, In: http://schuledesrades.org/palme/books/denkstil/?Q=1/1/3/109 3/2016.
[328] Wolfgang Leppmann: Goethe und die Deutschen - Vom Nachruhm eines Dichters. W. Kohlhammer Verlag, 1962, p 193.
[329] See also my criticism of the absolutization of individuation and maturation, loc. cit. → individuation
[330] Friedrich Kirchner in: http://www.textlog.de/1926.html 3/2016.
[331] Wikipedia https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religionskritik 2/2014.
[332] Rudolf Kuhr: Warum ich kein Christ bin; In: http://www.humanistische-aktion.de/christ.htm 2/2014. (Critical question: If Mr Kuhr had a daughter who was terminally ill - would he say the same thing to her? I sincerely hope not.)
[333] The magazine “Der Spiegel” in conversation with John Gray: DER SPIEGEL, taken from http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-69277681.html 9/2010
[334] Evangelischer Erwachsenenkatechismus s. Bibliography p 368/ 371.
[335] Evangelischer Erwachsenen Katechismus, Gütersloh, 6. edition 2000. p. 381 [Addition by the author].
[336] Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanismus 2/ 2014.
[337] Quotation by F. Schleiermacher or Grillparzer. (This means that being human without dependence upon God, will lead to the human person becoming an animal). The French Revolution may serve as an example of this.
[338] The following description of the most important
religions necessarily only includes that which seems to me personally most
essential for our topic. In addition, there are diverse directions
in all religions, which for reasons of space I will disregard at
this point.
[339] I myself do not consider this to be compulsory. See e.g. Jesus' assurance given to the criminal, who was crucified with him and who was probably not baptised, that he would “be with me in paradise today”.
[340] One could also apply this story to behavioral therapy, psychoanalysis or metatherapy.
[341] According to https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koran, 2017.
[342] © 2004 Islamisches Zentrum München.
[343] The 1st and 2nd are to be spoken in Arabic.
[345] Großer Brockhaus, KW Islam.
[346] Meyers Großes Taschenlexikon, KW Islam.
[347] Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dschihad 1/ 2016.
[348] See Abdel-Samad, Hamed: Der Koran - Botschaft der Liebe, Botschaft des Hasses. Droemer, München, 2016.
[349] This is true, excluding some sayings that I believe were not originally uttered by Jesus, owing to the fact that several decades have passed between Jesus' utterances and their recording in writing. Those who spread his message were, I believe, ordinary people who, at times, also misunderstand what was being said. (More on this later).
[350] Michael Hamerla:http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/deutschland/die-erloesungswege-des-buddhismus-aid-1.2637929 12/2011.
[351] Wikipedia: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhismus 10/2013.
[352] The Christian standpoint not to attribute absolute significance to earthly things, seems to be quite similar to the main objective in Buddhism to reach Nirvana. In contrast, in the Christian religion, however, it is about giving the earthly only a relative meaning and thus not dependent on it.
[353] This is contrary to the Christian faith, which promises a liberation and confirmation of one's individuality.
[354] V.a. aus: http://www.rp-online.de/panorama/deutschland/die-vielen-gesichter-des-hinduismus-aid-1.2636663
Serie - Weltreligionen (2): Die vielen Gesichter des Hinduismus; and
Michael Hicke: http://www.klassenarbeiten.de/referate/religion/hinduismus/hinduismus_55.htm (no date provided).
[355] M. Pöhlmann in: Evangelische Zentralstelle für Weltanschauungsfragen (EZW) http://ezw-berlin.de/html/4154.php; 2011.
[356] There is a danger however, that those affected might believe that one's health only depends on one's strength of belief and, vice versa, that one's illness is indicative of one's lack of faith..
[357] Dieter
Claessens: Familie und Wertsystem, [1962], 4th edition,
Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 1979.
Erik H. Erikson, Der vollständige Lebenszyklus, Frankfurt am Main
1992.
[358] In so doing, I will abstain from voicing some surely much needed criticisms of churches and their practices, for reasons of space. Nevertheless, I believe that churches are currently playing a relatively positive role.
[359] When prioritizing criteria of importance, the reasons
why I placed Jesus' utterances, as they have been handed down,
beneath the criterion of Holy spirit or love, are the following:
By no means were Jesus' disciples always guided by the Holy Spirit
but rather, they did things which blatantly contravened the
directions given in other verses (e.g. Peter dealt with Ananias
and his wife Sapphira in such a hard-hearted way that both died,
simply because they had kept a little of the money which they were
to give to the fellowship, Acts 5:1–11). It is instances such as
these which give us an insight as to why the disciples and their
successors have handed down some of the teachings of Jesus in an
other spirit. Therefore, one should be somewhat skeptical towards
the Bible verses which do not seem to correspond to this spirit of
love. However the “spirit of love” is, in no way, always a
comfortable one!
[360] Scholars have been hesitant to remove or mark as questionable some derogatory remarks made by Paul about women, such as “women should remain silent in the churches”, or verses discussing the “works of the flesh”, of which we are told that those who practice such things will not enter the kingdom of heaven (Gal 5:19ff; Rom 1:28ff; Tit 1:10ff). These statements are not in keeping with the spirit of Jesus and have caused a lot of damage. (KW: verbal inspiration, the inerrancy of the Bible).
[361] According to a cartoon found at the Convention of the Evangelical Church: Kirchentag München.
[362] http://www.geschichtsforum.de/f78/die-bekanntesten-religionskritiker-und-ihre-ans-tze-33596/; and Weinrich, Michael: Religion und Religionskritik; Göttingen, 2. edition 2012.
[363] In Original: S. Freud: Gesammelte Werke, Band 7, p 129, 139; Band 14, p 323, 380; Band 15, p 170,197
[364] See bibliographical references.
[365] G. Rudolf and P. Henningsen, taken from:
Psychotherapeutische Medizin und Psychosomatik. ed.by Gerd Rudolf
and Peter Henningsen 6th edition. Thieme Verlag 2008,
p.76.
What
a misinterpretation! When God says we
should not "sin", it is not a threat but orientation. He also loves us when we are angry, aggressive,
etc. Paul says, "Everything is allowed but not everything is
beneficial" (1Cor 6:12). [Hint: I partly
write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which
do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[366] Herbert Schnädelbach In: »Die Zeit«, No. 20, 11.5. 2000.
[367] Friedrich Nietzsche was probably an exception, who presented a rather contradictory and at times very positive image.
[368] If one followed this interpretation, the term
`expulsion´ would not be accurate. Rather, one would have to speak
of leaving paradise.
See also Plato's idea that we must have been at home in a higher
world before . (Quoted after Nietzsche and criticized by him).
[369] Thus, when compared with other religions, the most important scripture of Christianity is identified as being the “Bible”; not the “New Testament”.
[370] Amongst Paul's writings in particular, it is Rom 5:12 that is prone to misunderstanding.
[371] Reich, Ruedi. In: Zur Ökumene verpflichtet´. Ed. by Eva-Maria Faber, Schriftenreihe der Theologischen Hochschule Chur, Vol. 3, Academic Press Fribourg, p. 41, 2003.
[372] 1. Similar to the meaning commonly attributed to the
word, the term compulsion mentioned above describes categorical
imperatives without any alternative.
2. Ultimately, all the worldviews that I know of, except for the
Christian one, impose categorical demands upon people.
[373] Eine Übersicht über die Ideologien findet sich in der Gesamtübersichtstabelle Spalte E.
[374] It was in a letter to his fiancée, Wilhelmine Jaeglé, in January 1834, that Georg Büchner wrote this.
[375] “The Arab term: Islām ... means `submission (to God)´,
`complete surrender (to God)´."
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam,
12/ 2016.
In Christianity, God devotes himself (without surrendering) to us,
and a person is “defined” as having been made in the image of God - an identity which he does not lose, even when he
identifies with the “sinner” that he usually is. [Hint: I partly write God1
to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not
necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[376]See, for example, relevant concepts and programs for self-optimization, self-staging, etc.
[377] Notwithstanding, the responsibilities connected with the so-called absolute choice do not conform to this pattern.
[378] Individual, potential advantages are expressed in particular in the so-called hyper-forms and can be found in the Summary table in column N under ↑.
[379] In the original , Kurt Marti writes: “God, that is the great, the crazy one, who still believes in people.” (Gott, das ist jener Große, Verrückte, der immer noch an Menschen glaubt.”
[380] For characteristics of that which is second-rate, see also columns L and M of the Summary table .
[381] Großer Brockhaus, KW `Existenzphilosophie‘.
[382] I mention only keywords here. For a more elaborate discussion, see chapter `Resistance´ in the section `Psychotherapy'.
[383] See also: Eugen Drewermann `Sünde und Neurose´.
[384] Axel Kühner taken from Neukirchener Kalender, 18.5.2010.
[385] Neither: 'Food comes first and then morality´ (B. Brecht).
[387] This mechanism is both individual and commonly to be
understood. In classic literature, there are examples too.
E.g., of the serfs who, after their release by Tolstoy,
returned to servitude, since this was the way of life which was
familiar to them. Or the sorcerer's apprentice in the like-named
ballad by Goethe, who cried out: “The ghosts I called I cannot get
rid of now.” (own translation)
[388] It is not difficult to choose the +A (God), however it is a challenge to escape the effects of the complexes. Comparison: An ice block does not disappear immediately as soon as the water has become warm - not even in our soul. (See also section above). [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[389]The following information is taken from U.H. Peters and W. Loch, page 164 ff. (see bibliography).
[390] Quoted (and freely translated) from the Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, key word `Widerstand´.
[391]This understanding is up to date. For example, see Wöller, Wolfgang; Kruse, Johannes: Tiefenspychologisch fundierte Psychotherapie. Key word `Widerstand´.
[392]As described above, sA represents general and sS (strange-Self) internalized, strange Absolute. Since it is irrelevant for this topic whether the problem is considered to be a general or a personal one, I shall at times refer to them as sA, or as sS.
[393]There is a saying : “Even a dog will bite you if you take his bone and do not offer a piece of meat in its stead.”
[394] One and two are very close to each other.
[395] In a philosophical sense.
[396] Resistance also against – of +sA? Yes but its not called resistance because its a healthy fear.
[397] E.g., see the appropriate section of Wöller, Wolfgang und Johannes Kruse: Tiefenpsychologisch fundierte Psychotherapie. Schattauer, Stuttgart, 2005.
[398] While people used to have to be moral - especially and under the influence of misunderstood religiosity - we must now above all be rational and adult.
[399] From Schischkoff keyword: Jaspers.
[400] In 2009, Marion Sonnenmoser investigated complaints about psychotherapists. The most common complaint (43%) was that the therapist did not show enough empathy so the patient could not develop confidence in him. http://www.aerzteblatt.de/pdf.asp?id=66315 10/2009.
[401] Example: Klaus Lieb, Bernd Heßlinger, Gitta Jacob: Psychiatry and Psychotherapy. München-Jena. 2. Edition, 2006. In the otherwise excellent book, similar to the psychotherapy guides, there are no philosophical or metaphysical explanations.
[402] Characteristics of this human image can be read in column L in the Summary table.
[403] Georg Groddeck understood the symptoms above all as a symbolic expression of the life impulses (of the It, as he understood it) suppressed by morality.
[404] From: Thomas Auchter and Laura Viviana Strauss: "Kleines Wörterbuch der Psychoanalyse" Göttingen (Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht) 1999.
[405] Freud called the I = Ego and after latin the It = Id.
[406] Mentzos p. 120 and pp. 131ff.
[407] Viktor Frankl: Der unbewusste Gott, quoted by Dieter Wyss , p. 276-278.
[408] H. Wahl p. 290-291.
[409] Shortened especially according to Zimbardo, p. 413 ff.
[411] See bibliography.
[412] The other criticisms are also partly found in the literature.
[413] S. Freud cit. from: Thomas Auchter and Laura Viviana Strauss: „Kleines Wörterbuch der Psychoanalyse“ Göttingen (Vandenhoeck & Rupprecht) 1999, p. 154.
[414] S. Freud: Abriss der Psychoanalyse. Fischer Verlag (Paperback), 1983, p. 8.
(Remind: For Freud is I = Ego
and Id = It)
[415] Except for the mentioned 'elected-absolutes' of the I.
[416] The philosopher Slavoj Žižek complains in parts rightly in Geo 5/2006, that only the psychoanalysis compared to the other psychotherapies has a philosophical background.
[417] Sources: Dieter Wyss `Die tiefenpsychologischen Schulen...' and Wikipedia, 2014.
[418] According to Mertens.
[419] Wyss p. 473
[420] Wyss p. 399
[421] Janov, Arthur: Der Urschrei. Ein neuer
Weg der Psychotherapie. Frankfurt: S.
Fischer, 1982/1993.
(The Primal Scream. 1970)
[422] Janov developed his theory after he had initiated a
regression in a patient by making him scream for mama and papa.
After the patient screamed for them, he collapsed with a
"penetrating death cry" but afterward he felt like a new-born baby.
Some Christians
experience their spiritual rebirth similarly. They cry for God, who
is stronger than mama or papa.
[423] Hansjörg Hemminger: Flucht in die Innenwelt - Primärtherapie als Meditation der Kindheit. Ullstein 1980.
[424] Wöller, Wolfgang und Johannes Kruse: Tiefenpsychologisch fundierte Psychotherapie. Schattauer, Stuttgart, 2005.
[425] Wöller, Wolfgang und Johannes Kruse ibid. Also in D.W. Winnicott: Reifungsprozesse und fördernde Umwelt, Fischer-V., Frankfurt a.M. 1985.
[426] From: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kognitive_Verhaltenstherapie 2014; http://www.lernpsychologie.net/lerntheorien/kognitivismus 2014.
[427] Seeing e.g. In Wikipedia under these keywords.
[428] From: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kognitive_Verhaltenstherapie and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitivism_(psychology) 2014.
The 11 thinking distortions from http://mysite.du.edu/~chmorley/Beck.pdf (here shortened)
[429] One also knows this mechanism from everyday life when one is sad but a well intending fellow man wants to prove how beautiful the world is.
[430] To be distinguished from philosophical positivism.
[431] According to Scheich, it is also apparent that "many
people who want to think consciously positively have never thought
so strongly negatively. It is a paradox of the 'opposite effect' ...
"(From https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positives_Denken 2/ 2014
.)
Günter Scheich: "Positive thinking makes you sick. About the
dizziness of dangerous success promises.” with the collaboration of
Klaus Waller. Eichborn, Frankfurt, 1997.
Please note again that all quotes are freely translated and are therefore not real quotes.
[433] Source of the citations: 1. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational-Emotive_Verhaltenstherapie
2/ 2014.
2. Becker, Vera; 1989 s.Lit.
[434] https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialektisch-Behaviorale_Therapie by Marsha M. Linehan, 2/ 2014.
[437] Also here only keywords from: http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Humanistic_psychology / http://www.aghpt.de/ 2 /2014.
[438] Brockhaus Enzyklopädie, `Logotherapie´ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logotherapy, 2, 2018.
[439] Deutschen Gesellschaft für Integrative
Therapie, Gestalttherapie und Kreativitätsförderung,
http://www.dgik.de/ 2/2014.
And: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gestalt_therapy,
2018
[440] Source: (1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salutogenesis , 2, 2018. (2): https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salutogenese 2/2014.
[442] See also H. E. Richter: `Der Gotteskomplex´, p. 75ff.
[444] From Zeit online http://www.zeit.de/2011/44/C-Traumatologe 10/2011.
[445] Felix Hasler: Neuromythologie. Transcpript, Bielefeld. 3. Ed. 2013, p. 7-8.
[446] Heinzpeter Hempelmann http://www.iguw.de/textsammlung/view/article/von-aepfeln-und-birnen-geistern-und-gehirnen-elektrischen-potentialen-und-potentialen-der-freiheit.html
[447] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_trauma,
9/2018; https://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/21/study-of-holocaust-survivors-finds-trauma-passed-on-to-childrens-genes
, 8/2015.
This means that what has been inherited by genes can be
based primarily on psychological and mental damage.
[448] In short you could say that genes can be closed with a snap or opened.
[449] Perhaps former psychiatrists were right when calling psychoses mental diseases and not brain diseases.
[451] http://eh-tabor.de/fileadmin/eh-tabor/forschung/MIRP/Vorträge_Veröffentlichungen_MIRP/Artikel_Richard_Freund 3/2012.
[452] Emphasised by me.
[453] Institutions such as the Klinik Hohe Mark (Oberursel), de'ignis Fachklinik (Egenhausen), Magdalenen Klinik (Georgsmarienhütte), Klinik Sonnenhalde (Riehen/ Switzerland) or Klinik SGM Langenthal (Switzerland) have introduced christian content to their treatment programs in the German-speaking world since a couple of years.
[454] Seitlinger, Michael (Hg.): Was heilt uns? Zwischen Spiritualität und Therapie. see. Lit. references.
[455] See: Daim, Wilfried: Tiefenpsychologie und Erlösung; Herold publishing company, Wien, 1951
[456] Wyss, Dieter: Die tiefenpsychologischen Schulen ...“ p. 409.
[457] (1) https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonale_Psychologie and https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonale_Psychotherapie
2/2014.
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology
2/2018.
[458] Aus: http://www.visionaryart.oliver-sorin.com/2/2014.
[462] Extracts from https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seelsorge 3/2014.
[463] 1. There were over 100,000 AA groups worldwide in
2008. https://www.anonyme-alkoholiker.de/
2. Meanwhile, the AA program also adopted by groups
without reference to the problem of addiction (EA groups).
[464] I am referring here to the situation in Germany.
[465] Bernhard Grom: „Religiosität/Spiritualität - eine Ressource für Menschen mit psychischen Problemen?“ from: http://www.psychotherapeutenjournal.de/ptk/web.nsf/gfx/3153DC0EEE7B388941257A800048F478/$file/ptj_3_2012.pdf. 3/2012 .
[466] Summing up: Klein & Lehr, 2011, literature reference by B. Grom.
[467] One will probably (still?) have to renounce a university career if one abandons this smal-mindedness
[468] See the bibliography (p. 55).
[469] Psychotherapeutenjournal 3/2012, p. 191-298. I added the !.
[470] “For the reward of sin is death“ (Rom 6:23). On the other hand Jesus: The blind's disease was not because of his sin or because of his father's or mother's sin.“ (Jn 9: 1-41) both quotes from http://www.o-bible.com/bbe.html
[471] Warum heute kaum noch Seelsorge? See also H. Thielicke, in Läpple among others p. lit. 126 following.
[472] Quote (and freely translated) from Wolfgang Wöller and Johannes Kruse: Tiefenpsychologisch fundierte Psychotherapie. Schattauer, Stuttgart, 2005, p. 21 following.
[473] H. Wahl, p. 252
[474] H. Wahl, p. 301
[475] Pfeifer, Samuel: Die Schwachen tragen; Brunnen, 2005. Likewise Hans Küng „Verdrängung der Religion in der Psychiatrie“.
[476] The letters of Sigmund Freud and Oskar Pfister https://archive.org/details/psychoanalysisfa00freu
[477] This is not about being against unavoidable technical terms but against its abuse as a label.
[478] For example, you cannot even once find the keyword `love´ in the „Wörterbuch der Psychotherapie“ by Gerhard Stumm!
[479] Compare: It is more important to follow the traffic rules than to transgress them. Sometimes, however, the opposite is more appropriate.
[480] See unabridged German version of chapter 'Meditations'.
[481] From: Erich Fried: Gesammelte Werke.
Bd. 1. Wagenbach. München 1993, p. 565. © Claassen.
(See also Emergency
solution with psychiatric drugs)
[482] R. D. Laing: `The Divided Self´ p. 12.- S. bibliography.
[483] I remember a drug industry sponsored course on "How to
keep my patients coming back constantly?" -
not: "How to cure and let my patients go?”!
[484] Maria Erlenberger: 'Der Hunger nach Wahnsinn', Rowohlt, Reinbek/Hamburg, 1977, p. 64
[485] Mt 5:41: “And whoever makes you go one mile, go with him two.”
[486] Is it not good that God does not answer our superficial prayers for the healing of our bumps on our head in order to point to a causal solution? [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[487] That is why they are hard to be treated with logic.
[488] I deliberately put the term "paradox" in quotation marks, since it is not really a paradoxical therapy but one that the person concerned experiences as paradoxical but which in reality is only a seemingly paradoxical one. Therefore, I also avoid the term "counter-paradox" as used by the school of Mara Selvini Palazzoli.
[489] Partly analogous translations (in this order) from: Lk 23:34; Lk 14:26; Mt 5:44; Jn 12:20ff; Jn 12:24; Mt 8:22; Mt 23:11; Mt 19:30; Mt 7:21, To Paulus: 1.Kor 7:30 ff, 2 Kor 12:9, 1 Kor 1:27, Phil. 1:21. To Paulus: 1.Kor 7:30 ff, 2 Kor 12:9, 1 Kor 1:27, Phil. 1:21. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[490] He does not give us everything - but the most important things during sleep.
[491] Selvini Palazzoli, Mara, l. Boscolo, G. Cecchin, G. Prata: Paradoxon und Gegenparadoxon, 9th Ed., Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart, 1996.
[492] Paul Watzlawick, Janet H. Beawin, Don D. Jackson: Menschliche Kommunikation. Formen, Störungen, Paradoxien. 6th edition, Huber Verlag, Bern – Stuttgart – Wien, 1982.
[493] However the actual +Absolute is not man just by himself. He is too weak for that. As mentioned above, he is only absolute in choosing the Absolute.
[494] Quote from Bodelschwing: "If you meet a saved addict, you meet a hero."
[495] I guess you could call it “the moment of birth of the self-confidence ”. Bruno Bettelheim called a book "The Empty Fortress – Infantile autisme and the Birth of the Self" which offers the view that the Self must be born and educated in the course of life. I think this can be said of self-awareness but not of the Self. I also believe that the Self is already there by birth. When we were given our children, for example, I would say that they were themselves right away, even though they were not aware of it.
[496] Morality (the "law") has only a relative importance compared with love/ God. It is embedded in it and thus “also-absolute”. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[497] God is thus also the strongest liberator and intensifier of the Self. How do I get to myself? Or: How do I get the strongest self? The spirit that loves me the most will still best help me! He loves me more than I love myself. [Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions of official theology.]
[498] For example, the first miracle of Jesus was not a humane act but the transformation of water into wine. Jesus has sins forgiven without demanding any amends or the like. To ask for forgiveness was enough.
[500] In reference to Socrates: "Always keep in mind that everything is transient, then you will not be too happy in happy times and not too sad in sad times."
[505] I postulate a so-called 'The absolute
attitude of the I at the center of the person Self, which
exists beyond the child or adult role and relativizes them.
[506] It is
problematic or even dangerous if, as sometimes recommended, the
child-I is centered on its own without a strong foundation
(preferably an omnipotent Absolute, God) because then it is too
vulnerable and weak. That´s my problem with Janov's Primal
Therapy. Moreover, the left picture shows us that this person does
not run “smoothly”and does not rest in itself. It wobbles. The
reason for this, as described elsewhere, is an absolutizing of
something relative, which creates a strange-Self with two or
more centers, around which the ego wobbles.
[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own
conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions
of official theology.]
[507] (Lk 12:31, New Living Translation)
[508] This does not only apply to essential attitudes towards
life but also to simple daily situations. For example: If I, being a
man, must be necessarily potent, I cause impotence. When I am
educated to say everything correctly and fluently, stuttering will
be provoked. If I try desperately to remember something that is very
important to me, I will not remember it, etc.. But it is only when
we relax and relativize, which means in our cases to be able to be
impotent, to be able to say something wrongly, to be allowed to
forget and so on, that we are more likely to achieve the desired
goal.
[509] Perhaps S. Freud meant by "death drive" something
similar to the Bible's "mortal sin". In his late years S. Freud
postulated the "life- and death-drives" as the two main drives.
[510] The quotation is literally (in the German version, here
it is freely translated into English) but I cannot find the source
any more.
[511] As already mentioned at another place, the "original
sin" does not correspond to the so-called "mortal-sin".
[512] See also: Morbid
gain and Resistance.
[513]
Prisoners often feel this way when being released after
many years. The patient is in a similar situation: He does not
“want” to be healthy although really quite wanting to.
[513b] From https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopharmakon,10/ 2011. (bold written from me).
[514] But: I find it problematic as already noted in the
confrontation with the psychotherapy of Janov if the affected person
regresses on a child level but he should feel safe, loved and
invulnerable - which is only partly possible in the presence of the
therapist - an additional + `meta-area' (God) is best.
[Hint: I partly write God1 to indicate my own
conceptions of God, which do not necessarily agree with definitions
of official theology.]
[515] Aus: Krank- selber schuld? www.ekir.de/bonn/00/stk/Downloads/12_-_Krank_-_selber_schuld.pdf 2007.
[516] Scharfenberg quoted at H. Wahl ibid. p. 288.
[517] H. Wahl ibid. p 288f.
[518] H. Thielicke, In: Läpple, Volker & Joachim Scharfenberg (Hrsg.): „Psychotherapie und Seelsorge“; Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt, 1977, p. 126f.
[519] One would have to say: "... maybe a real guilt will be denied" because of course, other people can be guilty of my depression.
[520] H. Thielicke ibid. p. 128.
KW= keyword = headword
ns = new-strange/ new-second-rate
No. = Number
P = Person; P¹ = first-rate
personality; P² = second-rate personality (often only
P labeled)
pr = psychically relevant
pR = the psychical Relevant
r = relative
R = the Relative
R* = Relativistic
resp. = respectively
s = strange = second-rate (²) (Discussion and definition
of this term as in literature - see in`
Metapsychiatry': The
strange-Self (= the strange personal
Absolute).
sA = strange/ second-rate Pseudo-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
[Further
references are also given in corresponding footnotes].
http://new-psychiatry.com
There you
find the
PDF-version with the latest
improvements and a bibliographic
index.
There,
you find the German editions in Kurzfassung
oder Langfassung,
too.
Torsten
Oettinger on ResearchGate
Torsten Oettinger in Academia edu: https://independent.academia.edu/TorstenOettinger
Torsten Oettinger in
MyScienceWork: https://www.mysciencework.com/profile/torsten.oettinger
I am
neurologist-psychotherapist and have worked for decades above
all psychotherapeutically.
I have no liabilities or obligations to any individuals or groups.
I am glad about feedback to:
Dr.
Torsten Oettinger
Wewelsburger Weg 7
D- 33100 Paderborn
Germany
Mail: torsten.oettinger@yahoo.de
© by T. Oettinger, 1999/2022 [last Revision: 2022-03-24] 8th revision Lic. CC BY-SA
This publication is partly translated or proofread by dr. Robert
Oettinger, Astrid Quick, Pia Burt, Joschua and Barbara Minnich.
We try to keep improving the translation.