From: Leopold Szondi, Ich-Analyse [Ego Analysis] in Fate Analysis Teachings.

Found at Google Web Alert for: "fate analysis". LEO BERLIPS,(Editor), Leopold Szondi Forum Site Sweden. .. 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.

Thanks Google