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.