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

Translated by

Arthur C. Johnston

&cop= y; 2008

by A= rthur C. Johnston, PhD

<= /b>

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   = ;          <= /span>

           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?<= /p>

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, 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, Leipzig 1928, p. 133.=

2 Compare here to Wellek, A.: Die Polarität = im Aufbau des Characters [Polarity in the Buildup of Characters]. Franc= ke 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.