From: Lipot Szondi, Ich-Analyse [Ego
Analysis]

Translated by

Arthur
C. Johnston

© 2008

by Arthur C.
Johnston, PhD

Please Observe: The copyright of this article (in German or in
English) belongs to the Szondi Institute and to Dr. Arthur C. Johnston. This means
you may not duplicate this article without their permissions.

Chapter X

The Ego Concept in
Schicksalsanalyse

[Fate Analysis]

21. The ego is the pontifex
oppositorum, [the bridge between opposites] which spans all spiritual
opposites. The integral ego concept.

In the preceding chapters we
have tried to represent briefly the history of ego concepts through a
survey—which is certainly very incomplete—from the Upanishads of
Indian Theosophy up to the wholeness symbol of the “self” in the present.
The time span of this ego history stretches over almost 3000 years.

With these repeated
experiences of ego history, we can never disregard this basic fact of Fate
psychology [Schicksalspsychologie]—namely that history is
basically Fate Analysis, the analysis of choice behavior, which conditions
history. That means here: The history of ego concepts is the history of the
transformation of object and conditioned choices in the understanding of egos.
It represents on one hand the analysis of the ego fate of the individual in the
course of individual development and on the other hand, in general, all
humanity.

With this survey about path
of fate which the ego concept in the preceding three thousand years has
covered, the manifoldness in the choice of fate possibilities of ego concepts
surprises us first of all. What was the
ego in all this in the course of time! It was God, world creator, world
author, lord, the undying inner ruler; it was one’s own body, the
position, the possession, the surroundings, one's own name, the soul [Seele]
which reigns in the world and moves things; it was the spirit [Geist],
the metaphysical substance; it was a bundle of perceptions, representations,
and experiences; it was judgment and thought; it was subject and transcendence
as being-in-the-world; it was a piece of the unconscious, a defense organ, a
non-libidinous drive, a sexual object, a reservoir of libido, the ego-ideal, a
censor system, the secure power against that without power, the will to power;
it was the center of consciousness and a part of the totality of the psyche,
thus the self.

On the basis of traditional logic one can say that the
specified objects and functions determine characteristically the content of the ego concepts. Logic
distinguishes however recognizably the content
(complexes) and second the circumstances
(Ambitus) of a concept.

Under content, logic understands the wholeness of all
signs of a concept. Circumstances are called, on the other hand, the wholeness
of all objects and all different concepts, which are included under a chief
concept.

The “reciprocity rule of concepts”
establishes that the richer the content of a concept is, the more narrow the
scope and the reverse. In other words: A concept is in its range more narrow, thus limited, and even therefore
clearer, the richer the characteristic signs fill out its content.

We call therefore the
specified objects—respectively functions as signs of ego concepts -- thus, one must say: The content of ego concepts is
extraordinarily rich and as a result of this its range should be narrow; thus
be clearly limited. We consider, on the other hand, the specified
objects—respectively functions of ego concepts -- as
“objectives” or, however, as part concepts of the whole concept of
the “ego”; thus the range
of ego concepts is very wide and thus unclearly interpreted; on the other hand
its content (thus the wholeness of its signs) is determined too narrowly.

Out of this dilemma the
“concept of concepts” in the Hegelian dialectic turns out to be
helpful. This states: Concept is “one's own self for the
objectives….” “The soul of life itself: It is the drive which arranges itself through the objectives throughout
its reality.”1

This interpretation
corresponds with Fate Analysis completely. We say: Each concept determination
is an unconscious choice behavior among the possibilities, which as definite
objects respectively functions are present. The same choice of
objects—respectively the functions in the concept determination --
materializes however through the transference; that is, through the projection
of something in the unconscious of the person respectively from the collective
dynamically moving and ruling needs itself or through the projection of a
collective idea (archetype).

A concept was therefore the
objectivation of an unconscious -- mostly collective -- process through
projection.

*

Under this aspect we must
therefore interpret all that which in the course of time in the concept of the
ego as object, as function, or as sign of the ego at times has appeared,
constantly in realization and
objectivation of unconscious processes and
as projective collective processes out of the unconscious, and with
that take seriously all manner of concept determinations appearing at any
time—that is, accepted as mental reality. Thus we arrive at the integral
concept of the ego.

In other words, the ego has
in fact an inner relationship as well with God, with the world author, and the
inner ruler, with the spirit as well as with the bodily drive nature, with
omnipotence and impotence, with judgement (censor) and with thought as bearer
and carrier of the past. It is bound internally with the bundle of functions
and also with individual functions, with the libidinous and non-libidinous
drives, with masculinity and femininity, with the conscious and the
unconscious, with the body and the soul, with waking and dreaming, with the
being here in this world and being there in the other world beyond.

In this historical
transformation of the ego concepts -- that is, the choice of objects and
functions that at times have been contained in the ego concept, Fate Analysis
considers choice behavior under the opposite pairs of functions and objects,
which populate unconsciousness and
move against one another dialectically and dynamically in the unconscious.

We arrange the
transformation of these choice behaviors on the basis of the opposite structure
of these ego concept forms; thus, we obtain the following global opposite
pairs:

1.
omnipotence     ßà  impotence

2.
spirit                ßà  nature

3.
unconscious     ßà  conscious

4. subject world    ßà  object world

5.
femininity         ßà  masculinity

6. body                 ßà  soul

7.
waking             ßà  dreaming

8. this
world         ßà  the world beyond

These are the leading and
outstanding opposite poles in mental life, under which one may easily subsume
all other mental opposite pairs.

*

Like the modern historian,
thus also the Fate Analyst harbors the opinion that in history—as also in
the fate of an individual -- an outstanding happening, a behavior, a leading
interpretation, exhibition and way of thinking can never be the work of pure
accident. All is doubly determined in
the history of humanity and in the fate of the individual. This double
determination means: Fate is not alone controlled by all of the causality laws,
as assumed by the historical materialist, but it underlies synchronically with the law the connected chain of the results and
also the “complete law,” thus the finality, the law of life plans of the individual man and whole humanity in
general. Without life’s plan the concept of fate is indeed an eggshell
without content. According to Fate Analysis, the history of mankind and the
individual is—as fate—constantly the results of two moderating laws
set against each other.  That means:
The end result of causality and finality laws, thus the whole law. The life of the individual as well as
mankind rests on an antithesis structure. The opposite poles can stand in
relationship to each other in two ways.

The first is the so-called complementary or completing contrast characteristic, the second the contradictory, in which the antipole
excludes itself from the other. The mental opposites are almost all of a
complementary nature. They complete themselves reciprocally. The contradictory opposite pair excludes
itself out on the opposite side, and through that the person never integrates,
but he or she must “choose”
even among the opposites only one as a partner; for example, he or she chooses
being, life, and renounces not-being, thus suicide.

Under this aspect appears
the difference between integration
and choice. Then: The integration,
the completion of the opposites into a whole, is the ideal solution of the so-called complementary opposites. When the
person dissolves the complementary opposites of his or her soul (for example,
masculinity and femininity, Cain and Abel demands, etc.) with the choice of one demand and repression of
the other and thus this manner of solution can indeed be good for the community
and thus be socially good; for the person it is however danger-bringing. Then: Only the integration, the wholeness of the
coexisting opposite pair resolves the question for the good of the community
and at the same time also for the individuals. The choice of an anti-pole
is actually correct only with the contradictory opposite pairs. For psychology,
the complementary opposite pairs come into question in the first place. These
are however not separated from one another, stand thus not independent, simply
static, without relationship there, but the opposite poles “live”
with one another in a complete, reciprocal “complementary coexistence.”2

This living together wholly
and reciprocally of the opposite poles in bodily and mental life means:

1.     The opposite poles move
themselves dialectically always against one another.

2.     This consists of a constant
working together, a reciprocal working together and a cooperation, between the
two poles of the opposite pair.

3.     This complete being with one
another (coexistence) and this complementary working together (cooperation) of
the opposite poles is the means to shape themselves all forms in life with
their characteristic traits as well in the physical and also psychical world.

4.     If the complementary
tendency between the opposite poles is broken or disturbed, then the individual
person as well as mankind experiences a catastrophic danger.

If we consider now the ego
as a court under the aspect of complementary coexistence and cooperation of the
opposite poles, thus we arrive at the following conclusions:

In the psyche, opposite
impulses, strivings and representations are always moving. Thus: The impulse to
expand himself omnipotently like God (ego
diastole) and at the same time the compulsion to limit himself to the bound
sphere of a human being in the world (ego
systole). Or: The impulse to fulfill the spiritual and at the same time the
demand to satisfy the drive nature. Or: The demand to be a man and at the same
time a woman—that is, the demand to
the completeness of a two sexual being. 3 4 Or: The
need for objectifying and at the same time for making subjective an inner
spiritual process. Or: The impulse to see all combined in a bundle, in a
complementary summary, and at the same time to live and to represent a function
of this bundle in individual experience. Or: The impulse to make conscious
unconscious processes and at the same time the impulse to make much from the
consciousness again unconscious and thus to preserve much eternally in the unconscious.

These as also other mental
opposite pairs, which we have not specified, live in men with one another in a
reciprocal and an opposite-sided complete coexistence and cooperation.

*

When this is thus, however,
in mental reality, then we must assume a higher court, a central administration
in the soul that functions as an impartial minister of the “consensus of
parties” and guides the office of a “consensus of opposites.”

That means: We must raise up
an over-bridging court over these
opposites, which on one side reunites
and holds together the reciprocal, complete cooperation of the opposite
pairs. This is an interpretation of a consensus of parties. On the other side,
however, the court must be a complete power-distributing
organizing court, which takes over the task and the ministration to watch
over and to bridge over the opposites and to exercise the function of the complementary and the wholeness of opposites. Fate
psychology sets up the concept of ego as bridge builder and as the bridge over
all mental opposites and affirms:

The ego is the Pontifex oppositorum [the bridge between opposites].

The ego is therefore the
power-distributor, the organizer and administrator of the complete cooperation
of the opposite poles of the conscious and unconscious soul.

The ego socializes and
sublimates, individualizes and humanizes all opposites of human drive nature.
The ego is the bridge which may span all opposites in the soul. The ego is the
complex manifold axes of fate wheels on which the mental opposites depend.

That means: The ego itself
is neither the omnipotent God nor the impotent man; it is the connection
between God and man.

The ego is neither spirit
nor nature; it is the bridge between spirit and drive nature.

The ego is neither object
nor subject; it is the mediator between object and subject.

The ego is neither a bundle
of functions nor a particular function; it is the hand that ties the individual
function to a bundle of them.

The ego is neither man nor
woman; it is the complete two sexual being of man and woman in one.

The ego is neither the
center of being consciousness nor a piece of unconsciousness; it is the axis on
which depend a pole of being consciousness and a pole of unconsciousness.

The ego is neither
exclusively waking nor dreaming; it is the bridge between waking and dreaming.

The ego is neither this
world nor the world beyond; it is the bridge between this world and the world
beyond.

How is it however possible
that a court to bridge over all opposites may integrate?

In the introduction to this
book we have raised up in anticipation the preconditions of the bridging
activity of the ego. These are:

1.     Transcendency, thus the capability to surmount from one into another region.

2.     Integration, that is, the capability of restoration of the whole out of the
complementary parts.

3.     Participation, thus the being able to be one
again and the having a share in the other, in man and things, in the world,
and in everything.

The concept of the ego as Pontifex oppositorum must be set up
therefore as a transcending, integrating, and participating court.

Only in this way it is
possible that the ego may work as an integrating court.

On the ancient question of
the Upanshades, “What is your ego?”
we can now answer the question in the language of our time:

What man makes godly and God
may make human: that is your ego.

What the power and might of
the soul under the power-making courts of being distribute: that is your ego,
the power-distributor.

What all opposite pairs of
the soul -- as a mighty wheel with many axes -- carry in its poles: that is
your ego, the bridge of opposites, the bridge-builder of all opposites.

What the opposite pairs in
the soul move to one another, what they swing to a reciprocal wholeness: that
is your ego, Pontifex oppositorum,
the completer and maker of wholeness.

What pushes the man to
completeness and to the union of man and woman and drives to the complete
two-sexual being: that is your ego, the striver after completeness.

What pushes the unconscious
to become conscious and the conscious again to be repressed into the
unconscious: that is your ego, the maker of consciousness and the repressor.

What unites the body with
the soul, waking with dreaming, and the world here with the world beyond: that
is your ego, which constantly is underway.

The God being and the man
being, the man being and the animal being, the being in the body nature and the
being in spirit, the being in man and the being in woman, the being in
consciousness and the being in unconsciousness, the being in waking and the
being in dreaming, the being of this world and the being in the world beyond
are only ego chosen positions on the commander bridge of the soul and thus only
partial and episodic modes of being in this world, therefore fate possibilities
of ego-being.

Ego being is the beginning and the ending of being in the world (Daseins),
thus man-being.

Then: the being in the world
without ego being is called animal-being or plant-being or stone-being. For the
correctness of the statement, we have established in the forward to the second
part:

The birth of the ego is at
the same time the birth of the human soul. And still more: it is the birth of
man-being overall -- in opposition to animal-being.

End Notes

1 Cited in Wörterbuch der philosophischen Begriffe
[Dictionary of Philosophic Concepts]. Frederich Kiorchner and Carl
Michaelis. Published by J. Hoffmentier. My publisher, Leipzig 1928, p. 133.

2 Compare here to Wellek, A.: Die Polarität im
Aufbau des Characters [Polarity in the Buildup of Characters]. Francke
AG, Bern.

3 Compare here to Szondi, L.: Triebpathologie [Drive
Pathology], Book I, p. 368. See further:

4 Winthuis, J.: Das Zweigeschlechterwesen [The Two
Sexual Being]. Hirschfeld, Leipzig
1928.