MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/related; boundary="----=_NextPart_01C8C403.3D94FF60" This document is a Single File Web Page, also known as a Web Archive file. If you are seeing this message, your browser or editor doesn't support Web Archive files. Please download a browser that supports Web Archive, such as Microsoft Internet Explorer. ------=_NextPart_01C8C403.3D94FF60 Content-Location: file:///C:/48FE5993/I-EgoConceptsinFateAnalysis.htm Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
From: Lipot Szondi, Ich-Analyse=
[Ego
Analysis]
&cop=
y; 2008
by A=
rthur 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. Thi=
s 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 chapt=
ers 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 th=
e 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 eg=
os.
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 concep=
ts
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 [Se=
ele]
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 transcende=
nce
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 pow=
er;
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 th=
at the
specified objects and functions determine characteristically the content of the ego concepts. Logic
distinguishes however recognizably the content
(complexes) and second the circumst=
ances
(Ambitus) of a concept.
Under content, logic understands the wholeness o=
f all
signs of a concept. Circumstances are called, on the other hand, the wholen=
ess
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 the=
refore
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; th=
us
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 ran=
ge
of ego concepts is very wide and thus unclearly interpreted; on the other h=
and
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 throug=
hout
its reality.”1
This interpretation
corresponds with Fate Analysis completely. We say: Each concept determinati=
on
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 project=
ion
of something in the unconscious of the person respectively from the collect=
ive
dynamically moving and ruling needs itself or through the projection of a
collective idea (archetype).
A concept was therefor=
e the
objectivation of an unconscious -- mostly collective -- process through
projection.
*
Under this aspect we m=
ust
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 w=
ith
that take seriously all manner of concept determinations appearing at any
time—that is, accepted as mental reality. Thus we arrive at the integ=
ral
concept of the ego.
In other words, the eg=
o 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 bear=
er
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 Analys=
is
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 struc=
ture
of these ego concept forms; thus, we obtain the following global opposite
pairs:
1.
omnipotence =
ßà impotence  =
;
2.
spirit &=
nbsp; ßà nature
3.
unconscious =
ßà conscious
4. subject world ßà object world
5.
femininity &nb=
sp; ßà masculinity
6. b=
ody &=
nbsp; ßà soul
7.
waking &=
nbsp; ßà dreaming
8. t=
his
world &n=
bsp; ßà the world beyond
These are the leading =
and
outstanding opposite poles in mental life, under which one may easily subsu=
me
all other mental opposite pairs.
*
Like the modern histor=
ian,
thus also the Fate Analyst harbors the opinion that in history—as als=
o 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 determi=
ned 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 l=
aws,
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-ca=
lled complementary or completing contrast characteristic, the second the contradictory, in which the antipo=
le
excludes itself from the other. The mental opposites are almost all of a
complementary nature. They complete themselves reciprocally. The contradictory opposite pair exclud=
es
itself out on the opposite side, and through that the person never integrat=
es,
but he or she must “choose”
even among the opposites only one as a partner; for example, he or she choo=
ses
being, life, and renounces not-being, thus suicide.
Under this aspect appe=
ars
the difference between integration<=
/i>
and choice. Then: The integrati=
on,
the completion of the opposites into a whole, is the ideal solution of the so-called complementary opposites. When t=
he
person dissolves the complementary opposites of his or her soul (for exampl=
e,
masculinity and femininity, Cain and Abel demands, etc.) with the choice of one demand and repressio=
n of
the other and thus this manner of solution can indeed be good for the commu=
nity
and thus be socially good; for the person it is however danger-bringing. Th=
en: 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-po=
le
is actually correct only with the contradictory opposite pairs. For psychol=
ogy,
the complementary opposite pairs come into question in the first place. The=
se
are however not separated from one another, stand thus not independent, sim=
ply
static, without relationship there, but the opposite poles “live̶=
1;
with one another in a complete, reciprocal “complementary coexistence.”2
This living together w=
holly
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 con=
stant
working together, a reciprocal working together and a cooperation, between =
the
two poles of the opposite pair.
3. This complete being wi=
th 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 worl=
d.
4. If the complementary
tendency between the opposite poles is broken or disturbed, then the indivi=
dual
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 impuls=
e to
expand himself omnipotently like God (ego
diastole) and at the same time the compulsion to limit himself to the b=
ound
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 s=
ame
time a woman—that is, the demand to
the completeness of a two sexual being. 3 4 Or: T=
he
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 func=
tion
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 me=
ntal
opposite pairs, which we have not specified, live in men with one another i=
n a
reciprocal and an opposite-sided complete coexistence and cooperation.
*
When this is thus, how=
ever,
in mental reality, then we must assume a higher court, a central administra=
tion
in the soul that functions as an impartial minister of the “consensus=
of
parties” and guides the office of a “consensus of opposites.=
221;
That means: We must ra=
ise up
an over-bridging court over the=
se
opposites, which on one side reunit=
es
and holds together the reciprocal, complete cooperation of the opposite
pairs. This is an interpretation of a consensus of parties. On the other si=
de,
however, the court must be a complete power-distributing
organizing court, which takes over the task and the ministration to wat=
ch
over and to bridge over the opposites and to exercise the function of the complementary and the wholeness of opposites. F=
ate
psychology sets up the concept of ego as bridge builder and as the bridge o=
ver
all mental opposites and affirms:
The ego is the Pontifex oppositorum [the bridge between opposites].=
The ego is therefore t=
he
power-distributor, the organizer and administrator of the complete cooperat=
ion
of the opposite poles of the conscious and unconscious soul.
The ego socializes and sublimates, individualizes and humanizes all opposites of human drive natur= e. 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.<= o:p>
That means: The ego it=
self
is neither the omnipotent God nor the impotent man; it is the connection
between God and man.
The ego is neither spi=
rit
nor nature; it is the bridge between spirit and drive nature.
The ego is neither obj=
ect
nor subject; it is the mediator between object and subject.
The ego is neither a b=
undle
of functions nor a particular function; it is the hand that ties the indivi=
dual
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 axi=
s 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 dreami=
ng.
The ego is neither this
world nor the world beyond; it is the bridge between this world and the wor=
ld
beyond.
How is it however poss=
ible
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 wo=
rld,
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 questio=
n of
the Upanshades, “What is your=
ego?”
we can now answer the question in the language of our time:
What man makes godly a=
nd God
may make human: that is your ego.
What the power and mig=
ht of
the soul under the power-making courts of being distribute: that is your eg=
o,
the power-distributor.
What all opposite pair=
s 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 pair=
s in
the soul move to one another, what they swing to a reciprocal wholeness: th=
at
is your ego, Pontifex oppositorum=
i>,
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 uncons=
cious
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 w=
ith
the soul, waking with dreaming, and the world here with the world beyond: t=
hat
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 possibili=
ties
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 sec=
ond
part:
The birth of the ego i=
s 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 Be=
griffe
[Dictionary of Philosophic Concepts]. Frederich Kiorchner and Carl
Michaelis. Published by J. Hoffmentier. My publisher,
2 Compare here to Wellek, A.: Die Polarität =
im
Aufbau des Characters [Polarity in the Buildup of Characters]. Franc=
ke
AG,
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,
4 &nb=
sp;
&nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; &=
nbsp; &nbs=
p; I.
Ego Concept in Schicksalsanalyse 5