The Theory of the Person

1

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

The Theory of the

Person The Myth of Schizofrenia

The Myth of Death

[2]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

The Theory of the Person

[3]

EMMANUEL XAGORARAKIS

THE THEORY OF THE

PERSON The Myth of Schizofrenia The Myth of Death

[4]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

Emmanuel Xagorarakis, The Theory of the Person ISBN: 978-618-5147-85-3 August 2016 Original Title: Η Θεωρία του Προσώπου

Cover design, Page layout: Iraklis Lampadariou www.lampadariou.eu Author's e-mail: exagorarakis@gmail.com

Saita Publications Athanasiou Diakou 42 , 65201, Kavala T: 2510831856 M.: 6977 070729 e-mail: info@saitapublications.gr website: www.saitapublications.gr

Creative Commons License Attributions-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 With the agreement of the author and the publisher, you are free to share and distribute this material (fully or partially) using any means under the conditions of source reference and no commercial use of the material. You also cannot alter or use it for derivative works.

Detailed information on the license cc, can be found at: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-ncnd/3.0

The Theory of the Person

[5]

[6]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

The Theory of the Person

[7]

To my Mother Kleio To the One Doctor Joannis Nestoros

[8]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

The Theory of the Person

[9]

CONTENTS A. The incontestableness of the Ego (person) ................................................................................11 B. Clarifications – supplements: ........................................................................................................26 C. The proof of the Person-centered Psychotherapy and Pedagogics......................................51 D. The proof of the Synthetiki (Integrative) Psychotherapy ......................................................56 E. The application of the present theory in Psychiatry ...............................................................63 F. The relationship of Spirit – Body ..................................................................................................85 References: ...........................................................................................................................................101

[10]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

The Theory of the Person

[11]

A. The incontestableness of the Ego (person) What may be this that we call Ego, that is “I”, or else I-ness? One could say it is the way the human being put his/herself into an issue of life. For example “I believe this government is harmful to the people and (I) wish that they go away”.

Whatever we may wish, whatever we may think, whatever we may feel, each of us as an individual, it initiates, at least verbally, and in general as a function of mind and soul as: “I…”.

So, the ego is this subject’s energy, the principle of the subject’s energies, that applies to anything –apparently, so much as an energy towards the environment (that is other people, animals, plants, and objects in general), as much as towards the same subject, to which the ego belongs, that is towards the whole self. We should here say that, since the ego applies in and functions towards the self (where the self is the total of the human organism – soul and body), then the ego and the self are not identified. Despite that when we say “I” (in Greek: “Ego”) we mean our individual existence, thus our self, yet our function expressed by the word “ego”, that is “I”, since by stating “I”, that is “ego”, we mean our self, and this is a self-definition energy, then by saying and generally minding “ego” (or “I”), we realize the most general and most fundamental deed of self-definition and selfrelation (relationship with the self). In other words, when I say “I” (that is “ego”), I, essentially, address to, and consider, everything that has to do with myself: whatever I am (for “I am”), whatever I do (for “I do”), whatever I wish (for “I wish”), and, in general, whatever has to do with “I…” or equally “Ego…”.

So then, by the function of our self that is expressed and initiates as “ego…”, or equally, “I…” we address to what we are individually – body and soul – and we as well address to whatever object, that is the environment (object = environment, subject = self), with which we are related in any way.

Therefore, the ego is “included” in the self, that is it constitutes the expression (energy, function) of the self – since, as we mentioned, we have the “I am Manolis”, therefore the ego (I), as to its being (“I am” refers only to the self, yet as a function it refers to anything inside or outside the subject-individual. So the ego refers to potentially anything.

[12]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

Yet, how is the ego defined? What is the ego? In order to perceive this we should see it in the frame to which it belongs and functions. We use and express the ego, i.e. the “I”, only as “I do”, “I want”, “I am”, etc. Saying that “the ego wants” or “the ego does”, etc., is conventional, and consequently wrong, for, at least by the linguistic perspective, the ego (I) constitutes the definition of the first person singular. In the way it is wrong to say “he do”, so it is wrong to say “the ego (I) does”. And, since the linguistic function –which here serves us as a frame, in the as above shown way– stands for, more generally, a mental function, then it is indeed – here– the consideration of the ego. We may say “the ego”, yet this is only conventional in the sense that we perceive the ego as an object – we set it as the object-target of the article “the”. We may say “the ego of Manolis”, yet if this is stated by Jim, it is certain that the ego of Jim activates this statement (i.e. it articulates and minds it), and since the ego –that is I-ness– is the individual’s action (and it’s expressed as “I (Jim) am…”, “I (Jim) do…”, etc.) then the ego –Jim– considers and generally relates with the ego –Manolis– as: “I, Jim” consider “you, Manolis”, or “him, Manolis”. We cannot state “I (ego) Jim consider I (ego) Manolis. This would be absurd. Consequently, the ego considered as an object, it is lost, since in this case it is necessarily stated as “him” or “you”, etc.

Therefore, since I who write this study am Manolis, cannot talk about the ego of Jim or Ben, and so on, in a genuine way, I then can talk only about me and say “I Manolis”.

Manolis is the whole man, the individual, the body-and-soul organism. In case I want to talk about only my ego (I-ness), I’ll only say “I”. Not my “I-ness”, or “my ego”.

But, what do all these mean? Is it that I can only perceive, mind and refer to me (“I”)? Is it that I cannot mind that the other person also has ego or I-ness? Is it, in the final analysis, that I should assume that, since I cannot conceive the other’s ego, then the other egos do not exist?

This question is a wrong question. Since I think or I act, or I wish, etc., and – in this occasion– I perceive, my perceiving the ego of Jim would mean (from the aspect of the genuine perception of the ego, to which we referred) that I say “I (Jim)”, thus my identification with the ego of Jim, or with Jim – something which cannot be. Yet, my identification with Jim is one thing, and my perception of Jim is a different thing. And, the perception of Jim’s ego means the very identification with

The Theory of the Person

[13]

Jim, since, in terms of the ego, we can only say “I (Jim)”. So, the perception of the ego is held only as identification and (I) Manolis is identified (or I am identified) only with Manolis (my self).

So, when I say “I” (in Greek: ego), since any function of the ego (I-ness), whether it concerns the self, or it concerns anything out of the self, initiates as “I…”, then the perception (or the principle) of all the functions (spiritual and physical, practical and abstract, and so on) is reduced only in the word “I”, that is “ego”.

Consequently we can consider –or else, function– everything by the principle “I” – “Ego”. I (Ego) see Jim, I (Ego) notice that Jim plays the guitar, and so on. Apparently, anything that can be stated and considered about Jim, it obviously initiates with “I” (“Ego”), thus it is conducted (as an always subjective function) by the ego –or, better, in order to avoid “the ego”, which cannot be– that is by me.

Apart from the various descriptions-qualities-functions of Jim, we can obviously state the same about animals, material objects, conditions, ideas, and so on, that is about all that can be apprehended, that exist and that the ego or the individual has the potential to relate with.

Anything can be related with the ego as “I…” (“Ego…”), that is be conducted as an apprehension-relation of the ego, except for the ego of some person, due to, as we said, the logical (linguistic) inconsistency. This inconsistency is not met in anything else, but only in the “ego” (or, to be precise, “only in me”!) for anything else does not entail what the ego entails (what I entail!). And, this is the notion of the principle, the subjectivity. A subjectivity which is here expressed in its absolute form as “I (Ego) function”. If anything, could it be anything else but the fact that the very essence of subjectivity is impossible unthinkable to be apprehended and expressed without the ego? I (Ego) write this theory. I (Ego) think of all these…

Yet, attention! The fact that I cannot apprehend, state, so therefore relate in any way with the ego of Jim, does not mean that Jim does not exist or that I cannot apprehend Jim or that Jim does not will, or he does not function, or he does not have subjectivity. The sure thing is we cannot apprehend or express “the ego” of Jim. But we can indeed apprehend and express/state “him” that is Jim. “Ego” (“I”) is the first singular person and that is me – I who write all these. “He”, that is Jim, is the third person, and in this expression/statement there is no absurdity. You, who read these, are second person, and in this case also there is no absurdity of expression, therefore of apprehension, therefore in relating with you. So, since I can

[14]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

relate with you or with Jim, why can’t I relate with your ego or his ego, and indeed to a grade which it is wrong even to say/state, that is apprehend, what I just wrote; “the ego (of you/him)”? Don’t you, or doesn’t he, have an ego? Doesn’t your or his ego exist for me? And, if this does not exist for me, then, since I (Ego) don’t even have the least possibility to even dare think of your/his ego, than why should I have a reason to even suppose that your/his ego exists in any aspect and perspective?

That is, since I –which means everything that I am (for “I” am), everything that I perceive (for “I” perceive), everything I relate with (for “I” relate with) – am by no means able to say/state about you/him “your/his ego”, that is to perceive your/his ego, can it then be that you don’t and he doesn’t have an ego? Of course, I can say/state: you/he. So you/him I can apprehend, indeed.

Therefore, what may be the difference between those two cases? Why is it that the one of them is incomprehensible –thus inexistent– and the other one is comprehensive – thus surely existent; that is you exist and he exists? Is it that on one hand you exist and he exists, and on the other hand, you do not exist and he does not exist? No. This last way of expression, and apprehension, is inconsistent.

The, on one hand, yes, and on the other hand, no to “you exist/ he exists”, is not valid because the very “you exist/ he exists” is by itself (the very) one case. The first case, that is “your/his ego”, is not expressed/stated as you exist/ he exists – or, more scholastically, as “your/his ego exists”. The very statement “exist(s)”, in the last statement here, is only combined with “you/he” (exist[s]). The Ego (I) is only constructed and apprehended as “I (Ego) exist”.

All these may seem merely philosophical and maybe fruitless thoughts. Yet, their philosophy and intellectuality, if we take a few steps further, we will see it is fundamentally a matter of life and way of existing.

We wrote that all the functions, the qualities, the structures of the self, are defined by the ego (and, to be precise: by me): I (Ego) play, I feel, I want, I live, I think, I work, and so on. There is nothing in me, in which it isn’t I who do, or in which it isn’t I who am, or be. For you or for Jim there go the same. You do, you are.

He does, he is. The ego refers to my wholeness that is to whatever concerns my individual. The “you”/ “he” refers to your/his wholeness. Or, to say better, it refers to your/ his individuality.

Now, my wanting to claim, in a way so arrogant that concludes to being an existential error, your/ his individuality –or else “you” or “him”– this is certainly

The Theory of the Person

[15]

incomprehensive. And this claim is not referred as “I claim you/ him”. By saying that I claim “your individuality”, I essentially say and mean I claim “your ego”!

Why is the individuality, which we also mention as wholeness, identified with the ego? As we said, the ego bears a catholic (individual) reference to the self: I do, I am, etc. The word “I” (Ego) is the subject to all the above referred verbs. The ego functions, or holds, everything in the self.

Am I able to hold the individual matters in your ego? (And I say “in your ego” and not “in you”). I cannot do this for this function is the function of the ego (of yours). Your individuality, if claimed –as individuality, in all cases– this means that you will cease to exist as an individual (obviously). Therefore, you will not be you, in any way and by any aspect.

Yet, people are affected with each other, every day, every moment. They are mutually altered (claimed) in all the ways – whether for good or for bad. So then, by which aspect is it impossible to me to claim your ego? Which is the distinction between claiming and non-claiming?

Above, given inside a parenthesis, we made a distinction between the terms “to your ego” and “to you”. Therefore, the distinction which we seek lies in the distinction between the apprehension of “the ego” of you/ him and the apprehension of “you/ him”. Here the apprehension is in general the correlation with your/ his ego or with you/ him, therefore so is the claim-alteration.

My regarding “your/ his ego” means that this consideration is (or becomes) part-function of my ego. “I consider your ego”. I make another ego subjected to me: I function (I have, I do, I command) another ego. I say, for example, (i) “your ego is persistent”. It is different for you yourself to say (ii) “I am persistent”. In the first case the “persistent” is a characteristic of the ego, while in the second case the “persistent” is a characteristic of the self in the way this is defined (functioned) by the ego. In (i) the ego is objectified; it does not define; it is defined. It does not function, but is defined and functioned by me, for, obviously, I consider that “your ego is persistent”. Obviously, in the statement “I am persistent”, the ego functionsdefines and it is not functioned-defined. If I say that “you are persistent”, then by saying “you”, I don’t function or define the persistence in you (that is I don’t characterize your ego), but you function and define the persistence in you. You are not defined, but, rather, you define. And in saying that you are not defined (by me), I don’t mean that you are not defined (judged) as persistent, since, indeed, I say

[16]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

“you are persistent”. I mean that you are not defined from the inside. That is I don’t take your position so that I put my ego instead of your ego in terms of the definition, so that I define you instead of you defining you. “You are persistent” doesn’t mean that I define you as persistent. It doesn’t mean that I define you as persistent in the aspect that I don’t take the place, the role, the strings of your ego.

If something like this could be, this could maybe expressed in this irrational way: I define that I are persistent. Since saying “your ego is”, is irrational, and we can only –in terms of stating the word “ego”– say “I am”, then the “I are” is the only way to express, on one hand, the word “ego” (“I”), and on the other hand, to characterize you, thus say “are”. If we seriously contemplate on this, could it not be that the “I are” is essentially the objectification of the ego? That is, instead of stating the ego in the first person, which expresses the subjectivity (I am) –thus the authority– we adjust the ego in the second person, and therefore, by saying “I are”, it is the same as saying “your ego”, thus expressing objectification – thus the claim.

So, the claim is expressed as “your ego”, which corresponds with and springs from “I are”. The “I are” expels the claim if stated in its, if anything, obviously correct statement, that is the: “I am”. The other correction of the “I are” is the “you are”. Yet, since we are referring to the ego, you who are, or you who read these words, you obviously say “I am”.

Therefore, as long as I express, apprehend live, and so on, the “I am” or the “I do” or the “I work”, and so on, I don’t risk my ego claimed by someone else. I am not in danger. Yet, is it not that the I…” is the mostly self evident and a priori given fact and conquest? Let’s clarify here that the “I..” is not valid only as long as I am selfish and hidden inside me thus not allowing the communication and mutual affection with anyone, and functioning or existing alone and individually. That would be the isolation of the individual, and thus of the self, and not of the ego. My self co-exists with the other individuals, the others, and my self mutually affects, completely inevitably, with the others; so much inevitably that we talk about a condition that is completely given and natural. Therefore, it would be totally irrational and a denial of the mostly fundamental reality to deny our own coexistence with our fellow people, but also, in the final analysis, with our whole environment, whether live or material, for it too affects on our self.

The ego, on the other hand, functions inside the self (it is included in the self); it does not function having as the only objective or target, the self. I (Ego) help

The Theory of the Person

[17]

the elder woman cross the street for I want it so. I am not bound by that perhaps my self (my body or my soul) will get tired, for I want (that is I choose, or it doesn’t bother me) to get tired. The issue is obvious.

So therefore, by what is the ego threatened or claimed, since it functions everything and it is threatened by nothing?

The fact that the ego is not threatened by anything means, as this comes from the above written, that nothing (like another ego) can function on its account, that is take its place/position.

We said that the ego functions in all ways, like “I want”, “I do”, and so on. So, let’s here take the will as a function of the ego, which tends to be the most fundamental function of it, at least from the perspective of the science of Psychology, which studies at large the tendencies of the soul, thus its wishes. “I want”. E.g. I want do make A my girlfriend. This wish we will name WA. As we wrote, nothing can function on my account (on my ego), so since I have the referred wish, this function of my ego cannot be altered or replaced by another ego’s function. And this from the aspect that this ego of mine (this function of my ego) cannot be defeated from the inside, that is my ego threatened, as we proved that it cannot be threatened (claimed). Surely, the wish WA can change; be modified or cancelled; but that can as well be from the inside; from the very ego itself. That is this girl may, e.g., show me a character which I hadn’t seen before, and I wish to leave wish WA or choose to give time to this girl so that I can see more of her character, so that I take a final decision. Yet, this change of the function of the ego is not about the “claiming” of the ego, but a free expression of the ego.

In this case the ego hasn’t been altered, for, in essence, WA hasn’t been cancelled. And this, because WA is not in contrast with the next wish, be it the WB. The WA is not considered as of absolute value. I don’t have the WA as an absolute and definite decision. The WA is valid (functioned by me) under the term which WB introduces. The wishes and choices generally are valid under conditions, where each wish is complexed with others so that a final choice or wish or position comes to form. As to this we can say that a wish, as being a component of a complex of wishes, is, as such, absolutely valid, or, since no wish is absolute, and we, thus our ego, is not absolutely powerful, we may then say that a wish values freely and conscientiously; it values as a genuine and distilled wish of ours. That is, I want a if it values (if I want) b, c and d. Or, more simply, I want a, and we’ll see what the

[18]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

future brings about, so that I assess if I want a. Even so, the “I want a” is free will, and the ego is not cancelled if the a wish changes, since the very ego includes the possible change of wish a.

So, when is the ego claimed – gets invalidated as being the very ego? Could this be in the case that I have a wish which is not actually mine? That is, does this happen when instead my wanting a, I want x, where x does not spring from my will?

Or is it when x is wrong? And how is it apprehended as wrong? Since x is apprehended as a claim of the ego, and this because in the case of the non-claim of the ego we necessarily have a, and the claim of the ego is not there –is not possible– we are then only left to say that a is not replaced by x; the ego, in other words, is not claimed.

Yet, on the other hand, since the ego is not all-powerful, then also the value of a is not absolute. The a is not replaced by the x –and this, not due to allpowerfulness, but due to absolute subjectivity or individuality as we have here considered it– but, since it is not of absolute value, then there is only left to say that its power is changed, and not its form or quality (from a to x); not its quality, but its quantity. What changes is the power of the wish and not the kind of the wish. The quantity of it and not the quality of it.

The same goes for all the functions of the ego, as this is obvious, since we considered the section of the will as merely an example. So, likewise in the level of the emotions, since the pathology renders them merely less intense (or vivid) and not of a different kind, then if we take a certain person’s temperament, that is a synthesis of emotional tendencies, we have the as so: The pathology of this person means that some of the emotions will be reduced; that is the quantity of their qualities will be reduced: If your feeling intense joy is hit, you will be feeling a medium or weak joy. If your feeling prolonged joy is hit, you will then be feeling a more short-term joy. And so on. The elements (where each emotional characteristic constitutes an element) will be changed quantitatively.

Yet, how is the quantitative change of the ego perceived, and how does it function? We said that an element (e.g. a wish) a of the ego, is not replaced by an element x, but, simply, the a is reduced. What does this mean? This means that in the effort of replacing the ego a by ego x, the ego x does not manage to insert in, to claim ego a, since, as we said, the ego is characterized by absolute subjectivity, and the only thing that happens is: the ego a, as absolutely subjective, changes itself.

The Theory of the Person

[19]

Let’s examine the matter by using a psychological term; the “internalization”.

Internalization is, in its pathological dimension, the receipt of a prototype, thus of an ego (x) from a psychologically weak person, and the replacement of the ego (a) of this person by the ego (x) of another person. Given this internalization is apprehended as replacement, since it is held in an non-thoughtful way, where the human (a) does not appreciate himself enough –thus his ego is “beaten” by ego (x)– then the ego (a) is claimed by the ego (x). Or, at least, so does the (a) consider and face this internalization. His mind essentially makes the fault, which is expressed as “you am” (or “I are”), to which we have been referred. The human (a) makes the mistake to replace his ego (a) with the ego (x). Of course, as we have proven, the claim, thus the replacement, is not valid – it is nonexistent. Yet, the wrong minding “you am” is an extremely wrong minding, where, always according to it, an ego replaces another ego. The two egos, as similar entities, they are of the same heavy importance. They have the same value, the same functionality, the same substance.

Thus, when the ego x “inserts” the ego a, we then have to do with a change inside the ego a, which is apprehended as a quantitative one. The ego a is reduced (i.e. quantitatively) and it does not change qualitatively. And this because the two egos, as similar entities, they are compared and antagonize each other in the soul of human (a) quantitatively. In other words, if human (a) didn’t have to compare (i.e. internalize) his ego with the ego (x), but with a different stimulus which is not homologous to his ego (that is, it is not another ego), but is, e.g., the observation of how the water of a fountain forms a river, then we wouldn’t have a claim case. We wouldn’t have the replacement inside the ego (a) by the stimulus, since the referred stimulus does not function antagonistically towards the ego. And, the fact that it does not perform antagonistically means it is not correlated quantitatively, thus the ego (a) is not at risk of reduction. And by this we refer to the case of the ego reduced as an ego, i.e. its power reduction, its substantial alteration; that is the ego-quality be cancelled. If this quality is not cancelled, the ego is not altered in any aspect, for in this study we examine the how much the functions of the ego (I want, I work, etc.) are functions of the ego (thus, whether we have a claim on the ego), and we do not examine what the ego wants or doesn’t want, etc. The water flowing in the river, consequently, does not change the ego-quality, that is does not claim the ego, for it does not constitute another ego; it does not antagonize the ego (a), since it is not homologous to it, not of the same kind. And, this very alteration of the ego by the, of

[20]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

the same kind, entity (ego x), is perceived as a quantitative alteration, since it is apprehended as a replacement. It is the same as in Mathematics: if a=e+y+z and x=y+z, then we can say that the antagonism-comparison of a and x is apprehended as a>x, that is a=x+z, which means a-x=z, so the a, which is equal to e+y+z is reduced to z. It is obvious that only two same-kinds can replace or compete one another. So, this replacement is the quantitative alteration. So, this replacement is a quantitative change. And of course, let’s note here that the elements e, y and z that compose a are apprehended as of the same ego-quality (personal quality), since we consider the a before the alteration-replacement. And the a has the same quality with each of its components (e, y, z), since it is also there, as such, before the alteration. By the replacement comes z through the absence of e and y, which absence is essentially the replacement. And, since z has the same quality with a, then there emerges no qualitative alteration. Also, let’s note that the way we compose the a and the x, that is through the in-a-row synthesis of e, y and z (i.e. addition), is correct as we are engaged in the notion and the process of replacement (purely and strictly), thus the subtraction of elements. And, as it is known, the subtraction is the reversal of addition. Thus, the additional synthesis of elements is presupposed.

And, since the claim is not feasible, that is the human a cannot essentially realize (i.e. make happen) the internalization –in other words, say “I are” or “you am”– then the internalization is a delusion, and the ego (a) does not receive the quality of the ego (x). But, since the ego (a) realizes the internalization as a delusion, the only thing it manages is cancelling itself and not being altered (replaced). And, this cancellation functions and bears value only in the terms of the delusion. And, this delusion is enough for the cancellation (more or less) –for, since the “ego (a)” and “ego (x)” are of the same kind, therefore of the same heavy value (and, as to this, there appears the delusion of the replacement)– then, inside the conscience and mind of human (a), his ego (a) does not survive (that is more or less, depending on how threatening he feels ego x to be).

And, since the ego is not an object for claim (it is not replaced), this delusion about the replacement is that depletes the strength of the ego – and it depletes it in by all means (it quantitatively changes it) since it cannot be that it changes it qualitatively. Therefore, at least in the level of the society (communion) of persons, the ego of some individual is not mixed with the ego of some other individual. Since, as we wrote, the replacement is not possible –it cannot be or perceived– this means

The Theory of the Person

[21]

that there is no confusion of elements from one ego to another ego. The internalization, if anything, is never in a catholic level. I cannot apprehend totally the ego of the other (his ego from all the possibly existing aspects). Therefore, I internalize functions of his ego, like a belief of his, an idea of his, and so on. Each such element is an ego. We have already been referred in these: I play, I think, etc.

So, since there is no apprehension about confusion between the egos, the ego is not “merged”, so it does not change quality; it is not deconstructed, but it is only suppressed (that is, as we wrote, it gets weaker; its quantity is depleted). And, this antagonism between the egos causes, as it is known, the conflicts and the splitting inside the ego. This is considered as schizophrenia. Yet, since the split, as we here prove, does not exist, but there only is the suppression (depletion) of the ego (since the split comes from the, above referred, delusion in the individual, thus it essentially is about the ego suppression), then schizophrenia, as being in some way the deconstruction (alteration) of the ego, it does not exist. The quality and structures of the ego stay unchangeable, and the therapy is the process of realizing the as referred delusions.

Since the conscience, which is expressed as “I (Ego)…” (from the aspect that this statement constitutes the position of the subject against everything) and, in consequence, any function f the soul constitutes an function held by the ego (as “I…”), as we already said, then the personality is a synthesis of ego functions. It is, so to say, many egos that comprise the personality. So, since some of these egos are ill, the balance of the personality is disturbed and the individual is mentally ill. Yet, since the egotic function does not change quality, but only quantity, that is it simply suppressed, then the synthesis of the personality simply gets different proportions –different quantitative relations among its elements– and it is not altered as a synthesis. That is it does not receive different composing elements (different egotic qualities). In this way, the dynamics of the personality is differentiated (dynamics of different quantities), and so the human is ill.

And, schizophrenia is diagnosed in this case instead of the diagnosis of the change in dynamics as we refer it, and the one case is falsely considered instead of considering the other case, from this aspect: Schizophrenia is defined as the split – division– thus alienation of a part of the personality from another part of the personality. And, a part of the personality is alienated from the total when it changes the quality of it. The soul, or the personality, is a total where each

[22]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

composing element of it is organically joined with the rest of its components. This is so, for we are talking about an organism (system). If anything, as we have referred, a wish WA has other wishes or choices, WB, WC, and so on, as being its presuppositions. So, if one egotic element is changed –that is a component of the personality– since we have to do with a living organism –the personality– this is like a composing element of our bogy is changes; an organ; e.g. the heart. In a heart transplant, the new heart, to the grade it is not compatible with the organism (thus it is qualitatively different, as having different DNA), the organism rejects it, for the transplant does not go along with the nature and functions of the organism. So, we have a dispute; a split, and the organism is ill. Nevertheless, if we do not have a different heart quality, that is if the heart is not alien, but the genuine heart, and it has simply been suppressed –e.g. it does is not beating strong enough– so, it is as saying, we have a quantitative change, then the body does not go against the heart and we do not have a dispute or controversy.

The quantitative change of dynamics, as we here refer it, while it does not bring about controversies, yet it causes a change of behavior and mental activity.

And this from the aspect that, by the reduction-suppression of one or more egotic energies –factors of the total of dynamics– the rest of the energies-factors that are not suppressed (or they have probably been much less suppressed) appear comparatively stronger that the suppressed ones, and so we have a change of priorities inside the personality. As we understand, when there emerge some energies as stronger, though they weren’t so before, there comes about an extraordinary or exceptional behavior and minding, which is easily interpreted, or is perceived, as behavior of obsession or even psychosis. It is about psychosis, for let’s not forget that the ideas and perceptions of the psychotic, in their essence, and as notions, they surely cannot be regarded as inexistent and as that they have absolutely no correspondence in reality. They are simply overall (be it extremely overall) exquisite, and their extravagance is this which makes them unadjusted to reality. The, let’s say, someone believing that he saw an extraterrestrial spacecraft, it cannot be completely and absolutely impossible to have happened. It may be a scenario of science fiction, yet theoretically, or possibly, this is not excluded.

(Someone may believe and know that there are no E.T.s, but this is not yet proven.

So, the opinions and perceptions are subjective, and so this is not a matter of psychosis). The same happens with emotions too. No emotion is absolutely

The Theory of the Person

[23]

groundless, but rather simply extravagant; so much that is seems really weird and unfit with the condition of life about which the human feels so. But even in the case where we have a function which is completely incompatible with reality, like a thought bearing no reason, we still can consider it on the basis of extraordinary minding, that is the extreme imbalance and wrong placing of the priorities. For example, someone could claim that 3+2 equals 7. Here again, we may have an extreme suppression, and this is in the evaluation of the exact counting, by the person, combined with an extravagant dispute, by the same person, of the fact that he knows almost nothing in the philosophy of mathematics, so that he allows himself to think that the 3+2=7 is philosophically justified.

Therefore, since, as we wrote, the egotic functions-elements of the personality are simply reduced and they don’t change quality, so the ego does not lose its nature, the human does not lose himself. Since the elements are not being lost, the potential for cure is certain, regardless of how heavy the pathology is. Of course, the more suppressed an egotic function is, the more difficult it is that it regains its prior strength. This, for, on one hand the environmental factor that caused it hasn’t been extinct, and so, the weaker the egotic function is, the more certain the victory of the environment is. And on the other hand, the change of dynamics among the egotic functions, is larger; the previously referred priorities thus become more exquisite and extravagant, and so a powerful status is created.

That is a status, in the sense that the soul, as a living organism that it is, bears the function of self-maintenance.

It therefore lies upon the psychotherapist’s ability and fluency to restore the extremely suppressed functions.

So therefore, if we had an alteration or claim of the ego, we would have the schizophrenia, since these conditions would cause split and controversy to happen.

Yet, since the claim on the ego is not apprehended, there is no schizophrenia. The claim on the ego is, as we said, a delusion, which as the delusion itself, simply causes the suppression on the ego.

This delusion is realized, as we said, in the statements (i) “I are” and (ii) “you am”. The subject, in order to express himself and mind healthy –and, in general, logically and existentially correctly– it should take the “I” (Ego) from (i) and the “am” from (ii), and say “I am”. The meaning of “I am” is so simple and fundamental that one would say it is not analyzed. Nevertheless, could it not be that all that we

[24]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

have so far written, since they conclude in this statement, they constitute the analysis and the way to conclude in this statement? To be precise, while the “I am” is not analyzed, yet we here analyzed and showed the reason why this statement/expression is only apprehended as such, and it cannot be altered. The alternatives of it, which we showed as fundamentally wrong and false, are the “I are” and “you am”. Therefore, we didn’t analyze the simple. The simple is obviously valid; and it is valid with no need for justification. What we did is that we proved why the opposites are not valid.

Nevertheless, the “I am” –as correct– and the “I are” and “you am” –as incorrect and irrational– also bear fundamental importance for our psychology; our self-perception. They are not only of linguistic and philosophical-existential content. Or, to be exact, so much the language as much the philosophy in its existential level, they have direct relationship with our psychology, n its fundamental dimension; the existential one; our self-perception, our self-definition, our relationship with our self, which is realized and synopsized in “I am”. The human mind is discriminated from this of animals and is characterized as human because is makes the thorough and analytical use of the word/language – verbal and scripted. Our history and civilization, but also our social structures, function and are preserved on the basis of the word. Our brain, considered as a person, has as the ultimate tool the word, with its structures and functions. In consequence, the word, and the philosophy on the content of the word, constitute, correspondingly, the way we think, mind and exist spiritually, and the way we are founding (philosophize on) these realities, which in the present theory, since referring to the mostly important issue of the ego, they are so much fundamental that, contemplating in the language and philosophizing on it, we locate and prove fundamental realities. In specific, it is the notion of the ego and the importance of this notion. And, the psychological-existential aspect of “I am” constitutes, as to this, and synopsizes the strongest living-experience, as this has been analyzed in these pages. It is about the life experience which makes us free entities; free to be who we are. I am free to be, for “I am”! And this, regardless of my possibly being selfish or altruist –or somewhere in between– regardless of any choice of “me” (and not of “my ego”) and any way of my living.

The “I am”, if we really conceive it deeply, which means going against the delusion of “I are” or “you am”, that is gain the mostly fundamental conscience of

The Theory of the Person

[25]

our consciously freedom, we will then have really found our genuine conscience. Or rather, we will have found our conscience which we had never lost, but we simply didn’t trust or love enough. And it is unnecessary to refer to how much this is worth. It is all that we are: “We are” – “I am”!!

[26]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

B. Clarifications – supplements: We should here additionally say that in the way it is wrong to say “your ego”, it is also wrong to say “my ego”. If someone claims the ego of the other as by the statement “your ego”, I (Ego), by saying “my ego”, objectivize my ego (my subjectivity) and I myself claim it. Claiming and objectification, as it comes from what we’ve written, are the same thing. And, since I (Ego) claim my ego, thus the ego claims the ego, and those two are identified as belonging to the same human, then this means that the perception of identification is lost and there emerges delusion of competition. And due to this, the ego objectifies the ego (the very self of it). The objectification is this that allows the ego considered out of the self and the accomplishment (even as a delusion) of a relationship of subject – object, thus fading away the relationship of identity. And, in the same way that the claim “your ego” is considered a delusion and as confusion-controversy of two egos (delusion of controversy) as “I are” or “you am”, in the same way the “my ego” as “my ego is…” produces the delusion “I is” or “it am”. This combination of the first person with the third person, which essentially is the split –as being a paradoxical and controversial combination– is apprehended as the split in the ego. So, it is also a controversy, since split and controversy are the same – in the sense of incoherence inside the ego. And, of course, this controversy-split, is a myth; it is an illusion, since there cannot be, or apprehended “I is” or “it am”, as also there cannot be “I are” or “you am”, on which statements is also based the corresponding illusion.

-------- -------Also, one clarification: In saying that the ego doesn’t change quality, we essentially refer to that it is irrational that an egotic replacement or confusion takes place, as, in any way, this has been proven as an inadequacy in terms of the claim on the ego. By saying that the ego changes in quantity, we refer to the delusion in terms of replacement or controversy in the ego, and this delusion merely suppresses the ego, and it doesn’t change its quality. The ego changing quality would mean changing substance that is change as an ego that it is. Yet, since the ego is not threatened by another ego, then by what is it possible to change? That is, in

The Theory of the Person

[27]

reference to what can it change substance? The ego is a person (the 1st singular) and its changing as an ego, as we said, means its changing as a person, thus its being a different person. The persons are three (1st, 2nd, 3rd singular and plural). And, as we said, the confusion between persons, as e.g. “I are”, in which we have confusion of 1st with 2nd person, is, on the one hand obviously wrong, and on the other hand it is not identified with or it doesn’t spring from the claim on the ego, which is impossible-inexistent. As to this, since the ego changes quality only through the claim, and the claim is impossible, then the ego does not change quality; it does not change substance. As to this, the only change is in its quantity, which essentially is apprehended as the change in its ability; its strength. And, of course, the change in its ability and power, is not apprehended as change of substance in any case, for in this case, which we here prove, we don’t have to do with an alteration of person, thus substantial alteration, as we explain above. And, since the ego defines the functions-characteristics of the individual, then there is no change as regards these functions-characteristics, as functions-characteristics of the subject. That is there is no change from the inside. Thus, there is no qualitative change of these functions, since change in quality means substantial-personal change.

-------- -------The claim on the ego as “my/your ego” is interpreted in more general psychological terms, and in intrapersonal or interpersonal relations, as this rude intrusion in the personality and subjectivity of the other human, in the sense that we impose on our/his person and we defy us/him. When we do not recognize to the human the personal substance (personality) –in a smaller or a larger scale– we essentially invade the limits of our/his person and dispute them. These limits and facts of the person, in the fundamental and most essential aspect, as we here examine, they are essentially the limits and facts of the persons as these are defined by the language and its structures (which, as we explained, express and comprise the structures of our mind and intellectuality). And the word (i.e. the language) defines and is defined by the three persons – 1st, 2nd and 3rd singular and plural. The 1st singular person, which is the natural space of each of us, is stated and defined by the term “I” that is, in Greek, “Ego”.

[28]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

Therefore, the statement “my/ your/ his/ her ego” is this which defines the claim on the ego. And, indeed, it is so if we consider that what we express as “my/ your/ his/ her ego” produces the “I (Ego) is” or the “it am” or the “I are” or the “you am”, etc. These confusions are confusions of person(s) and, as such, they introduce the lack of respect in the human’s personality; In the quality and the right of the human to have his own person (the 1st singular); his subjectivity. Yet, since the confusion of the person(s) is defined and expressed like we wrote above, then this confusion is not feasible and existent, since the claim on the ego, from which the confusion springs, is not possible.

And there is no need to simply and technically state the phrase “my/ your/ his/ her ego” so that we say we committed claim and disrespect. Any kind of disrespect, rudeness, deceit, and generally insult towards the person, essentially corresponds with the as above statement, since the insult towards the person is wrong apprehension of the 1st person singular (“I”), for the subject minds and is self-defined and functions as “I…”. And, this statement, as it is the corresponding with the subjectivity, judges that the personality is incontestable. The false statement produces false attitude, from the aspect of a mainly verbal-rational correctness. Yet, the incorrect in the practice of interpersonal relations, which is indeed the mostly harmful, is correspondent with the statement so that it comes as a conclusion and a proof the incontestableness of the ego –as we proved– as well as the accompanying illusion about the claim, and the way it functions. The claim on the person in interpersonal relations and in the intrapersonal relationship, as it is easily understood and commonly known, consists in confusion of the persons, so it is expressed, stated and defined as “I is” or “it am”, “I are” or “you am”, etc. Yet, these confusions lead to the claim on the ego as “my/ your/ his/ her ego” since they spring from and come about by it.

-------- -------So then, since schizophrenia does not exist, but there is only the quantitative change of egotic elements through the delusion of internalization, we can say that the patients diagnosed as schizophrenics are those who have an enhanced tendency for internalizing. Or, rather, they so think they internalize. Let’s here say that the internalization to which we refer is not the, e.g., replication of a model, which

The Theory of the Person

[29]

nevertheless we have chosen to mimic, conscientiously and freely, without resigning from our ego unthoughtfully in front of the model’s ego. Like all the functions of the ego, so the imitation of a model may as well be a genuine will of the ego. The ego is not stiff like a crystal and it is not a fruitless and introverted receptacle of inner living. Since all the functions (wishes, emotions, reasons deeds) have very well the ego as the subject and as the generating factor, then why not an imitation or an internalization?

The notifying difference between the healthy and the unhealthy internalization is located in the grade to which the internalization comprises a confusion of persons (I are, you am). Through the confusion of persons, we have the delusion of internalization, as we previously explained. So, the delusion is and comes from the weakness of the subject to clearly set the limits between his own person and the other persons. I am someone, and you are another, different one.

The distinction of the persons, besides its lingual content, it is also of psychologicalsocial content, as we also write above, that is as regards the disrespect of the other’s personality.

Therefore, the humans who have a small or bigger weakness in setting the limits of their own person before their surrounding persons, they are the ones developing a small or greater “schizophrenia”. Yet, since schizophrenia does not exist, for there is no the confusion of persons, these people are not faced with a split or a deconstruction/transformation of personality, and the cure is located in their setting the limits and safe zones between their own person (their personality) and the others’. And the border lines are, in any way, impossible to be confused, so, in conclusion, these people must discover the fact that the as here referred confusion which they make, is inexistent; it is impossible; it is a delusion. This realization shall tear apart many of the data inside them, because, their personal attitude, which is the personal confusion, is a life attitude, and so they shall be deeply discouraged and feel disorganized. Nevertheless, how disorganized can they become, given that the realization about the distinction of the persons will give them the knowledge and the experience of their own person?

The issue of if what we call schizophrenia is hereditary or acquired, it is not important. Since the cause is the as here referred delusion, then the tendency for delusion may as well be both hereditary and acquired. Yet, this cause –this trait– does not constitute the splitting of the ego, but rather a weakness for sense and

[30]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

definition-setting of the person. And, the cure is an inspired effort by the therapist to inspire this sense about the person and about the person’s limits, or, to say better, the person’s substance, which securely sets the personal limits and the personal distinction.

-------- -------To better understand how the confusion of the persons, as this is interpreted by the language, it is also confusion in psychological-social terms, it is enough to consider that the meaning of the three (lingual) persons (1st, 2nd, 3rd singular and plural) constitutes the definition and the core-essence of what we call personal distinction.

I am a subject; I exist subjectively and, in terms of myself, there is not anything other then me, for I am identified with me. The other one is distinct. The other, that is he, is the third person. You are also distinct –otherness– (2nd person).

Without the second and the third person, there cannot be stated, thus neither perceived, the otherness. And, without the otherness, we cannot be talking about differentness; about different persons, therefore about multitude, communion and relationship of persons. And the disturbance of the perception of the differentness of the persons as the claim on the person (the ego), it is unfortunately possible, although we will rarely find a human who does not state correctly the three persons in his word. Yet, the plain statement is not enough; and it is not everything. The human brain created the word, and the human brain also is defined and ruled by the word. Thus, the word and the general mentality are mutually affected in the dynamic way. Also, the word bears meaning, and it is not enough to technically state it in order to claim that we consider it correctly. So therefore, the confusion of the persons in terms of the word (language), is set to the extent in which we don’t fully apprehend the notion and the distinction of the persons. So, it is not enough to simply state them in the correct way. Their deeper perception is necessary.

Our not acknowledging the otherness to the other one means our considering him as an extension of our selves; of our personality. Or, may we say, considering him as our instrument; our puppet. And the disregard of the otherness –more or less; secretly or apparently– can be nothing but weakness or reluctance for perception of the other person, as this is set and defined by the grammatical

The Theory of the Person

[31]

aspect. We can do nothing else but to result in this conclusion, since, as we said, the otherness is framed and defined in the terms of the word.

A case of confusion of persons is the (perhaps) weakness to state the ego by very little children. Up to a certain age, the child has not formalized the notion of the ego in his/her brain and, instead Peter say, e.g., “I (Ego) want to eat”, he says “Little Peter wants to eat”. Here the subject expresses the “ego” (I) as “he”. Also, an individual facing a multiple personality syndrome, may say “George in me informs me of this…”, while George is a person which is included in this individual’s person, so therefore, he confuses the “I” for “he”.

When I, Manolis, have an egotic element, like a wish W, which is a genuine element of my ego and it characterizes me as a person, and someone is going to want to impose himself on me by telling me “you don’t want W, you want Z!”, and indeed without telling me something like “you shouldn’t want W” or “I would propose to you not to want W”, then he makes a cataclysmic assault for changing my ego.

The “I (Ego)…” is always escorted by an energy, like “I want W”. The ego alone, without an object or a characteristic, cannot stand. Such is its nature. As it is also impossible for the object or characteristic to stand without the “I” (Ego), or some other person. We cannot state “beautiful” while excluding the “he” as its subject. When having a specific ego, e.g. my ego, of me Manolis, therefore the ego M, we also have specific function escorting it, like the will W. Therefore, the M functions the W and not anything different that the W, and the W is connected to M in characterizing it.

So therefore, if someone imposes to me that I want Z instead of W, and the Z is something that des not characterize me, yet, due to weakness, I accept Z –that is more or less– then, since the ego functions the W, therefore “I” –Ego– (Manolis) and “W” are mutually depended to a grade that, if I want Z, I am not me (Manolis), then by submitting to will Z, I cease being Manolis – since “I” and “want W” are mutually defined. Therefore, it is not me, but someone else – e.g. this who imposed himself on me. Therefore, I confuse the “I” (Ego) with “he” and say “I wants” or “he want”. As to this we see that the inability for distinction of persons or the weakness that leads to their confusion, does not only lie upon our correct statement of the persons in terms of the word, but it is a general and dynamic situation of life during which our person is tested; our soul, and not merely our lingual perceptive ability, which is

[32]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

“the tip of the iceberg”; it is what is apparent, that is our conscious. The subconscious may hide other things. And, when the pathology is very great, then these things come up to the conscious. A characteristic case is the people with (so called) multiple personality, who even actually state (i.e. confess) the existence of many persons inside them, and confuse the persons, as we wrote above. Yet, since the confusion of persons and the claim on the ego do not exist, the referred people, but also schizophrenia in general, cannot stand to be; and their remedy is this which we have written.

In explanation, we can say as follows: “I want so, and not else ways”. “I do not want else ways”. It is not I who wants else ways. And, since I am not the one who wants else ways, then it is someone else who wants else ways. Thus, he wants else ways. If I was he who wants else ways then, since I am not he, I would be someone else. Or could it be that I could still be me, and I would simply be me else ways? To the grade in which I am identified with my will (the “I want so”), and this will constitutes a genuine element of mine, which identifies me, then it also defines my person. So, we say that if I wanted else ways, I would be someone else. That is, the “I am else ways”, it tends to be identified with the “I am someone else”. Yet, the “someone else” comprises the third person. Similarly, in the way I may say “I am someone else” (i.e. he), I may also say “I am you”, “I am she”, “I am they”, etc. The more the “else ways” responds in the identity, the more it defines and brings about the “someone else”; the person. Therefore, the “else ways” affects the person so much as bigger the weight of it is. Consequently, this always affects the person, more or less. There is o course the case that the else ways be freely chosen by the person, as in the case where a reality which he/she hadn’t previously considered or assessed is revealed to him/her. Yet, in this case, the person is not affected (i.e. pathologically), for the person itself has freely chosen (as a person; “I choose”) the change of will (from “I want so” to “I want else ways”) in the case of the speaking about realization. This is about the network or system of priorities and values, about which we have made reference in this theory (pp. 17-18). As we’ve said, the person is a complexity of functions, a complexity of egotic functions and elements. The claim on the ego (i.e. of the person) emerges when comes is an element which cannot be freely embodied by the egotic system, for it does not comply with the data of this system. That is, it is like the transplant of a heart which cannot be accepted by the organism, like we mentioned. The egotic system is also a living

The Theory of the Person

[33]

organism. Yet this organism can be weak or be in need, like it is for our body, and so to submit to the irrationality (delusion) of the confusion of persons.

-------- -------The fact that the subject cannot in any way practically and technically realize confusion of persons inside it, even if it is in a psychologically arbitrarypathological way, this is clear. If I say or believe that “I is” or “I wants”, etc., I confuse my subjectivity with his. Yet, the individual is subjective and, by the objective-orthological aspect, it is unthinkable that the subject is confused with another subject. If this happens, then the notion of subjectivity is lost. Whether someone wants or doesn’t want it, he/she is, and he/she is not you or I. This is the rational; the existing. The subject exists as such (as a subject). The confusion abolishes the notion, the entity and the reality of the subject. Whatever someone may be thinking, whatever he may be wishing or feeling, he doesn’t cease being who he is, and this he cannot change. The confusion is a delusion. The otherness, as it is defined by the three persons of the word, is the reality. The dispute of the otherness, which is completely unthinkable, is this very confusion of persons. And, the split of the ego, on the other hand, as we’ve shown, is referred in the confusion of the persons as a delusion. That’s the reason we are here engaged in the subject of the confusion of the persons, which springs from the claim on the ego (the person).

Otherwise, it would ne superfluous and purposeless to deal with why the “I are” or the “you am”, etc., are incorrect. They are obviously wrong, so there is no point in explaining their incorrectness. Yet, these wrongs are essentially the wrongs upon which schizophrenia is interpreted and understood; and these wrongs are that constitute delusion about schizophrenia and not reality about schizophrenia.

We said that the otherness, as it is defined by the three persons, it is the (objective) reality. Thus the person is defined in the way it exists, on the basis of the three persons. This means that the person (thus the ego) is defined in its function too, as based on the definition by the word. If anything, the how I exist (I exist as first person and as otherness) means the how I function as a person. I exist as I and not as you (that is “I am” and not “I are”) and this defines the function of my subjectivity in the objective-realistic aspect. Since the otherness (that I am not you) is an objective-existent situation, which is not altered by any mental disorder and

[34]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

arbitrariness in the ego perception, and the otherness is defined by the distinction of the persons –linguistically– then, since the distinction of the persons equally defines also the personal function and substance, that is the way I live, I think, I feel, etc., then this means that the mental processes –the psychology of the subject– are related with the distinction of the persons in the same way that the psychology of the person is related to the distinction or the plain existence of subjectivity, from which the otherness emerges. I other words, I am other than you (therefore “I am”, and not “I are”), means that I function as other than you. Thus: “I want”, and not “I wants”, “I think”, and not “I thinks”, etc. The fact that the mental functions are objectively-really existent by this way, means that the subject, no matter how much it wants or believes (consciously or subconsciously; more or less) in the confusion of the persons, yet this is not possible as a situation inside it. The subject or person is incontestable, and the confusion of the persons inside constitutes simply and only a weakness, that is, as we proved, it is quantitative change and not qualitative. That is, it’s not alteration-claim on the ego. It is simply a delusion; an insufficient sense of that I am I, and not someone else. In any way, I am I, necessarily and as by the law of logic, and nobody and nothing is able to alter me. Not even I myself! I myself can only have the relevant delusion (as by the internalization, as we wrote), which is surely a delusion, since, simply enough, my strength is lost, and not my quality, that is I! We connected the otherness from the objective-existent aspect (i.e. as a fact) with that the confusion of the persons (I are, you am) cannot be accomplished psychologically-theoretically inside the individual. Let us here set a consideration, which is self-answered: the “I are” and “you am” spring from the statement “my/your ego”, as we wrote. This statement is word (lingual code). Therefore, as we said, it is also generally consideration, mentality and function of mind. Could it not be that the objective-existential condition of the otherness –that is the fact that I am one and you are another one, and we both are two and not one– we perceive with our mind? That is, could it not be that this is a general apprehension, consideration, minding and function of spirit, like we write above referring to the statement “the ego”? To articulate word about the eminent otherness, that is this indisputable fact-condition, we should (obviously) have spirit, and our spirit not making the tragic mistake to dispute or deny the otherness, or in other words, the multiplicity. The notion of otherness and multiplicity is indisputably existent in our

The Theory of the Person

[35]

minds, and only with our minds can we consider it (since, of course, the mind is this which minds/considers), and all the philosophy and knowledge about the otherness is in our mental ability, like also this present theory. And, the word is eminently the function (the most accurate) for this mental function and activity of ours. And, in this present study, we analyze the verbal-wordy notion of the phrase “the ego”, and indeed in the fundamental aspect of the expression of the persons through the word (1st, 2nd and 3rd singular and plural). Thus, what we’re doing here, that is the analysis and the break-down of the phrase-statement “the ego”, and of the phrasesstatements “I are”, “you am”, which emerge by “the ego” an equivalent to it, is equally valid with the reality of otherness-multiplicity, for this too we considerexpress: we approach it –we perceive it– through our soul, our spirit, that is our perception, which certainly is a spiritual fact. Or else we wouldn’t even mention the otherness, and so there wouldn’t be an issue set, at all. And, this spiritual function and perception of ours cannot but be escorted and essentialized-granted by the word, as we are rational beings. If anything, these things that you the reader now read and think on them, they are word; it is about a manuscript, a logical theory. Is that by chance at all?

-------- -------It is of worth here to refer to that the ego, which in English is “I”, is also expressed as “I–ness”, which in Greek we may refer it as “ego–ness”. The ego–ness is a noun and, as to this, we can say “your ego–ness” or equally “your I–ness”, as by the “your ego”. So then, could it be that in tis case we do not face a lingual fault and, in consequence, neither a fault in minding (logic)?

The making the ego a noun, that is the ego–ness, or I–ness, which is realized through the second component –ness– declares that the ego–ness is able to be defined by the article “the”, thus be expressed as a third person this that we call “ego” (“I”), which is the definition of the first person singular. Yet, is it really that the component “ness” solves the paradox of combining the first singular (“I”) with the third one (“the”, or “it”)? This component (the –ness–) is the making-a-noun of a notion or a term, as in the good – goodness. Yet, the noun-making fails to found the third person singular, for we know that the article (he, she, it) is always followed by a noun or an adjective. Equivalent to this is saying that a noun or adjective

[36]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

always follows an article, definite or indefinite one. Thus the noun-making of the ego as ego–ness, fails to found the adjustment of it in the third person (and which founding is, as we have elaborated, the claim on the ego). Or, to say it differently, as much is the verbalization of the ego in third person as “the ego” or “my/your/his/her ego” (i), that much is valid the noun-making of the ego as ego– ness or I–ness (ii); in essence, the ego–ness is the very adjustment into the third person. Thus, we have an argument of no value, for, instead of justifying (i), we use (ii), while (i) and (ii) are equivalent, the one not springing from the other one. The “ego” (“I”) is first person. The “the” is third person. Thus, in saying “the egoness”, we ought to justify the “the”, as the issue is to what extent is the person we want to introduce justified – the third person. And indeed there is an issue of person set, as the adjustment of the first person –“I” or “Ego”– in the third one “the (egoness)” – is something paradoxical. The “the” defines the “I”, that is a person is included in another one. We personalize the person (we express the 1st person as it being the 3rd person), something which constitutes redundancy. The redundancy leads us to the conclusion that the logic (that is the statement “the egoness”) which produces the redundancy, is wrong. So the “the” cannot be stated in this case. And, even if we want to state this in an arbitrary way, because maybe that seems to us normal and obviously correct or functional –that is the “the” in the statement “the egoness” (or “the I–ness”)– then the “the” as arbitrary (since, as we said, we state it arbitrarily), we heve the nned to justify it and support it somehow – apparently. We cannot be saying that we state this “because so”. In other words, the presence and function of it, should be somehow –anyhow– justified, as it is placed and it functions inside the word, and so it is not to be there as arbitrarily present. And since there is the prohibition on the statement due to redundancy, we should find a counterweight about this prohibition. So, the only way that the use of the third person could be justified, is located in the only element of the statement which responds in the 3rd person, and that is the component “–ness”. Yet, since we have the equivalence of the as above (i) and (ii), the justification we seek to manage cannot be. On the contrary, there is no need for a such justification in the other cases of expressing a word in the 3rd person, such as “I run” – “the run” or “I am good” – the goodness”.

Here we do not face the need to justify the third person, as we merely have a transition (conversion) from one person to another, and not the redundancy of the conjunction, blend or connection of two persons, where the one is subjected to the

The Theory of the Person

[37]

other. In this case the “the”, on the one hand it appears and exists without proving and supporting its presence, but, on the other hand also, its presence is natural and unhindered, without something suggesting the need for support of this presence.

Therefore, we do not suspect at all the issue of the relationship of the “the” with the ending component of the word that follows it.

In other words, and in conclusion, since the redundancy is in any way there, and yet we chose to support the statement “the egoness” (“the I–ness”), we should set a counterweight against the paradox of the redundancy, so that there comes the balancing, and the statement, as balanced, and therefore justified, be accepted. Yet, the balancing, which is set as “– ness”, cannot be. (In favor of accuracy, the “–ness” is called to counterbalance the statement the statement “the ego” through the statement “the egoness”, as we initially refer.)

Also, we may say that the terms like “egoism”, egocentrism” and “egopathy”, which have as their component the word “ego”, are incorrect too. The reason for this is that the definition upon which they are perceived contains the statement, or notion, “the ego”. So, as egopathy is defined the pathology of the ego, the egocentrism is the centralization in the ego and the egoism is the, let’s say, movement of the ego.

-------- -------We often meet the reference in the ego with the word ego in inverted commas: the “ego”. This, one could say, justifies the lingual inconsistence of the phrase “the ego”; if the word ego is placed inside the inverted commas, the syntactic inconsistence is allowed: the inverted commas make legitimate the selfsame statement of any word or phrase.

To see to this subject, we should consider what the notion and function of the inverted commas is. The inverted commas are used in two cases; 1) in order to refer a self-same saying, and 2) in order to express ourselves allegorically, so then we put the word or phrase inside the inverted commas, for the word or phrase is not used in its literal notion, but we have so-to-say case.

If we take the word “ego” as a self-same reference (quotation) (case 1) then, in saying [the “ego”], we refer in the word ego (as: the word “ego”) and not in the notion and reality that the stating of the word “ego” bears. This is so for, as we said,

[38]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

the function of the inverted commas is their including a saying, something being said, thus a word. Because our subject is the word (i.e. the language) and how the statement [the “ego”] functions and behaves, we should, in order to clear this out, analyze it in the terms of the language; how this specific wordy case functions by the philological aspect. So then, if we want to see more scholastically to the function of the inverted commas as being a quote, we should then state a rather more complete quote. That is, if we perceive [the “ego”] as the word “ego”, it is of the same notion to also perceive [the “ego”] as in the phrase “I (Ego) play ball”, or in general the phrase “I…”. And, the scholastic reference in the phrase “I play ball” is as follows: Manos does something which is wordily expressed by the phrase “I play ball”. We so see that the inverted commas (“I…) are defined and apprehended as a phrase. Thus the object “ego” (“I”) is a phrase and not anything else. Thus it is not a psychological object (issue) or a psychological notion or a psychological reality. We may say: the psychological notion “Ego”, nevertheless the complete statement is as this: the psychological notion which is expressed as “Ego”. That is: this notion which is defined by the phrase “ego”. Thus, we necessarily refer in a phrase and not in a notion. We refer, that is, in a philological notion, like the phrase or the word is, and not in a psychological notion, like the person or the subject is, in our saying [the “ego”]. Yet the philological notion is of a syntactic, grammatical, notion, etc. So we are dealing with the word (“ego”) as a word, thus as a scripture, that is we are dealing with the typical (formulating) dimension; and in this sense, we may express anything inside the inverted commas and see it merely wordy, and not as a meaning of psychology and life. We may so say, e.g., the phrase “I am not I” or “I do not exist”, these phrases being in the philological sense (e.g. in their syntactic) not controversial or dysfunctional, while in the psychological sense they express some psychosis and, if anything, they are false as realities, since they express meanings which are controversial in the existential level. Also, from the philological aspect, we may as well say, e.g., “Psychology has proven that the human is weak-minded”.

Yet this is psychologically incorrect.

The second case of using the inverted commas for the phrase [the “ego”] is the supposal that the inverted commas depict allegory. Here we can say that the allegorical reference to the ego as [the “ego”] diminishes the power, therefore the validity, out of the statement. Our referring allegorically to the ego means that we are not literately saying what we’re saying, but that the ego is used as an example or

The Theory of the Person

[39]

a metaphor in order to express and mean something else. Yet, since we do not mean something else other than what we’re saying, the justification of the “ego” as being an allegory is of no meaning.

Let’s here note that the statements that resemble the statement “the ego”, such as “the willing” or “my being able”, etc., are not wrong for they amount and express the corresponding syntactically correct expressions: “the will”, “my ability”, etc. And, if anything, these are not equivalent to the confusions of the persons “I are”, “you am”, etc. Therefore, they are perceived, by the mostly strict perception, as wordy formulations and not as expressive-logical-psychological inconsistencies, unlike “the ego”, as we have written.

-------- -------In saying that there cannot be internal conflicts/ splits, we mean that there cannot be an ego ramming in another ego. Each (psychic) organism is obviously not perfect, and a part of it may surely come to conflict-disharmony with another part of it. And indeed this may occur on the basis or by the chance of an external stimulus, thus another person (ego). It is a fact that we are not invulnerable. A ramming element is like a thorn, which penetrates our flesh. It causes pain, fever, etc. Yet the pain or the fever, are functions belonging in the organism, which are considered as a disruption of the normal function, thus a disharmony, thus a conflict. E.g. the fever has damaging consequences on the organism. So, these conflicts are by the organism to the organism. The thorn causes the conflict, but the very conflict does not include the thorn. In other words, the thorn is never “internalized” by the organism in the way that it could be absorbed, thus the thorn be turned into flesh. This is impossible. Thus, the “split”, as the self-same condition of the organism, does not entail the ramming element, which, in the final analysis, does not have the organism’s DNA so as to be considered as part of it. Therefore, the internal conflict cannot be regarded as a product of internalization. The solution to the conflict (the cure) comes with the rejection or the extermination, of any kind, of the thorn. And, the cease of the conflict goes along with the cease of the fever and the pain.

If there is a case the thorn be absorbed by the organism or, so be it, its presence be tolerated inside the organism, then there is no conflict either.

[40]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

Therefore, we see that the organism is this that decides on conflict or non-conflict (depending on how it faces the alien element); it not up to the alien element. So, since the organism manages and defines the conflict, the conflict is located only inside the organism. Thus, there cannot be a conflict between the flesh and the thorn, those two being two rival sides. And, to this point, we don’t mean that the thorn is an enemy to the organism or to the flesh, but we’re rather referring to the level and logic of the organism-subject, which is what we’re here dealing with, so that we comprehend it and heal it as a subject that it is.

A therapy of the out-of-the-subject conflict, that is the coping with the very thorn, would be the doctor extracting the thorn from the body. Yet, is it not that the very body, if strong and healthy enough, expels the thorn? So then, is it not that the inside-the-subject and the intrapersonal cure are identified to the grade in which the latter follows the data and the wishes of the subject? Therefore, is it not that in this case also, the subject preserves its subjectivity, since the outer energy does not abolish this subjectivity, given it agrees with it? So then, we have the confirmation of the subjectivity (by the doctor), on the one hand, and, on the other hand, we have the dispute of the subjectivity by the thorn as this being a threat against the organism, thus of the subject. In the first case, since nothing threatens the subjectivity (and to the grade in which it doesn’t threaten it), the subjectivity does not lose its character and nature; the individual has no reason not to exist subjectively. In the second case the conflict is, as we said, only inside the subject. So, the internalization is excluded, so the borderlines of the subject are not confused with the object (thorn), therefore again the subjectivity is preserved. In conclusion, the internalization is not considered; it is not there; it is not possible. It is not possible as a confusion of limits; thus the conflict and the split are not caused by the internalization, but they are apprehended as conditions that are initiated by the subject and result in the very same subject. They are purely internal situations which do not contain external references. The subject defines and functions them.

We have said that the external factors are perceived only as an illusion of internalization, and, as such, they cause only quantitative changes. And indeed: the thorn, as a factor that affects our flesh, it threatens our health, our well-being, our existence. That is, it affects the how much we exist or the how well a part of us exists, as e.g. a finger of ours, which has been penetrated by the thorn. The how the finger exists (that is as a specific subjective system-element, with its own DNA) is

The Theory of the Person

[41]

defined by the self-same finger and in general by the subject-organism, and not by the ramming thorn.

Then again, if the thorn manages to alter the finger’s DNA or, so be it, causes a permanent functional change to it, which change, nevertheless, is not apprehended as a conflict (that is there isn’t fever, pain, etc.), then the thorn has been “internalized”; it has become part of the organism. Here we have internalization, but yet, since there is no conflict, our original case/supposition is lost. That is, absence of conflict means also absence of disease.

So then, if the turbulence and the disease has nothing do to with the outer, the alien (the thorn), but it has to do with the “same” (the fever, the pain), we wonder how much the disease and the burden are apprehended as a conflict of splitting, even inside the self-organism. The condition of splitting, of controversy, seems to be alien to the data of the inner life of an organism. The organism is also called individual. A tree is an individual, an animal is an individual, like a human is an individual. The individual is characterized by its not being divided (undividedness), thus by the fact that the divisions (splits) inside it are cases alien to it. The only way for the individual to be divided-split, would be an external factor. Yet this means, as we’ve explained, internalization, and so this is impossible. Nevertheless, the quantitative change of dynamics among the organism’s composing elements is possible. And indeed: the fever is merely an increase of the already existing temperature. The pain is the brought-to-action of the sensory cells about the pain, which cells are already there, therefore, potentially, we are in pain every single moment. And so on. It is, therefore, one thing the change in dynamics, which is defined by the harmonically structured organism, and it is another thing the invasion of an alien, thus possibly opposite (splitting, contrasting) mass or factor.

Of course, the alien factor may have a power and an effect greater than this which the organism is able to withstand, the organism being insulted, and so the organism’s functions be disturbed. That is, from the simple quantitative change in dynamics, due to extreme reactions, the nature and facts of the organism may be insulted, and so we may have qualitative changes inside the individual. Yet, on the level of subjectivity, as we examine this in this theory, that is in terms of the personal communion, the insult of any kind towards the subject, is made as a claim on the ego and internalization; and these energies are groundless (they make no sense) and they function only as delusions (delusion of internalization). And, the

[42]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

internalization as being a claim on the ego, we have said that it is revealed as being a myth, as a delusion that it is, though the correct sense of the otherness; the otherness is the distinction of the persons (1st, 2nd and 3rd). Therefore, the more strong and clear the sense, awareness and theory of the otherness is, the more great and overwhelming the defense of the subject is against an intrusive or hostile or cunny (and so on) “ego�; that is the defense against a subject or an egotic-subjective element-energy of some human to another human. And, let it be noted that it is not only the human that may insult us. It may also be, e.g., a dog through its anger. We consider a dog to be our friend, so we attribute personal substance to it.

So, because our personality is not always stronger and superior to the conditions, it may be harmed. Yet, this is only through the delusion of the internalization. Therefore, the stronger the sense of the own person, the stronger we are. The stronger I am! Yet in the case where the sense about the person is not enough clear and strong, and this causes not merely quantitative changes (repression of the ego), but extreme quantitative changes, so much that the organism (the brain, the soul) is disorganized, then the changes conclude to be qualitative alterations, and we may have conflicts, in the sense and level of degeneration, which disturbs the balance and causes pain. So, it is exactly the same pain as in when we literally lose our balance, so then we are dizzy and the result is that we fall down, hit and so get hurt and suffer. The referred conflicts, that is, are apprehended as degenerating change and not as change in the quality of a personal energy-element (which qualitative change justifies the conflict-split-alienation among the parts of the person, thus the schizophrenia). In order to have personal alteration, there is the need for something to intervene, something which is able to alter the person, and that is only another person. This is so because the person is not correlated with something which does not constitute a person, such as, e.g., a rock (see pp. 19-20). The person is indeed related to the rock because it apprehends it, but yet it is not related with it personally, so it is not altered and it is not affected as a person; as a quality of person; as the person that it is; as identity. So then we have degeneration, which, of course, means depletion of the vigor, the performance and ability of the personal organism. We have no reason to consider that the degeneration constitutes qualitative change in the sense of the alienation of a personal (egotic) energy-function by the own, that is by the nature of the person; by the mental particularity of the human. And this is so because the notion of the alien

The Theory of the Person

[43]

to the person can be apprehended only as being an other person. It is meaningless to say that a rock is alien to me or familiar to me, that is if and to the grade which I do not attribute personal entity to it. And, since, as we prove, another person cannot change another person qualitatively, then by no means do we have qualitative change, but we only have quantitative change or degeneration, which essentially is an extreme quantitative change.

Yet, since, as we said, the change-degeneration is nurtured and depended on the factor that causes it, that is the insufficient sense of the person (illusion of internalization) on the one hand, and on the other hand the threat by the rudehostile subject, it is then obvious that the effort for the exemption-freedom from those two factors, behaves and results therapeutically.

-------- -------Although we say that the persons are not confused, so someone cannot “enter” in us –in our thought, our emotion, our attitude and theory about the world– yet in practice we see that many people are passive characters and they often do not have their own opinion, they do what the others tell them, etc. That is, they don’t think and act as they really believe and know, but as others choose for them. Therefore, could it be that indeed a person enters in another one and modifies it qualitatively, thus the person is altered?

Here, we should initially say that it is within the facts and functions of the person that it listens to the others and functions according to their sayings. A function of the ego is very well this which is expressed as: “I want to listen to my mom on the x sybject and do what she will tell me, for I don’t have the relevant experience and because I very much trust her opinion”. This sentence begins as “I…”, so we have a from-the-inside and conscientious will and choice of the person to freely function according to the data of some other person. Thus, the self-same person operates the acceptance of a foreign energy (the mom’s energy) on some subject. Therefore, the incontestableness of the person is not abolished. Of course, this passive attitude possibly entails dangers for the mental and physical organism; the self. It is like trusting in a foreign hand to intervene on us instead of using our own hand on us. E.g. it is like letting someone cut our nails. Our nails and fingers do not belong to him, thus –in regular, perhaps– he doesn’t respect them and he

[44]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

doesn’t “feel” them the same as we do, so he will possibly make them bleed. His relationship with our nails is not organic, unlike the relationship of our nails with us. The foreign hand stands for the foreign ego or a foreign egotic operation. Our own hand is our own operation; our own person. The nails and the fingers are the self. And, as we have said in the beginning of our theory, the ego and the self are not identified, the ego refers not only to the self, but also to anything out of the self, and the ego is included in the self (organism, brain).

So therefore, the patronization by someone else constitutes a self-operation, thus we don’t have alteration of the person. Yet, since we make word about patronization, which in many cases is equal to the handling of a puppet, the self is so much stressed that it loses its operations. The bleed of the nail is something which corresponds to the “bleed” of the self-thinking, the self-operation, and so on.

The patronization of the brain, although it has been chosen by the brain itself, yet, as it comes from the nature of patronization, this causes serious changes in the Central Nervous System. And, since the organism (the brain) operates the ego (the person), we also have degeneration in the very perception and theory of the own person. So, we have confusion of persons and internalization. If anything, the person which patronizes us has the whole ease to impose on us or cheat us, etc.

Thus our own person (self) is in a fragile position against the other one. And this is so for, as we write above (pp. 41-43), and it is self-evident, it fosters the claim on the ego and the lacking/ vague sense-perception of the own (and of the other) person.

Yet, we have proven that the claim, the confusion and the internalization are merely delusions. Thus, in any case, the patronization does not constitute invasion of a foreign person in the person which, for sure, is this which has in advance chosen the patronization.

The acceptance of patronization comes from the weakness, the passiveness, the inexperience of the person about life. Thus, in regular, it springs from the primary years of the person’s life, when the person is exclusively dependent on its parents or its guardians. During the raising the need for patronizing (which, let’s not forget, is a self-same function of the person) is less and less imperative, and its position is finally taken by the independence, the self-will, the own thinking and considering. If we attempt a resemblance between the individual’s evolution and the evolution of the human kind, we could say that the operation of (accepting) the patronization corresponds, physically, with the last vertebra of the human vertebral

The Theory of the Person

[45]

column; the last vertebra has retained some extent of a tail form. This we once needed, but now it has no important functional value for our organism. Yet it does not cease to be a part of our body, bearing our own DNA; thus we have no conflictsplit-independence-disharmony within the whole self (see: spiritual DNA and schizophrenia, pp. 20-22). The referred part is a part of our self; not that necessary, but not to be rejected either. The “last vertebra” of our person, that is the choice for letting our self to the other –patronization– is of great importance in our early years and of very little importance during the adulthood. On the contrary, the importance of the autonomy is very little in early years and very large afterwards. So we see the great change in the analogy of dependence-independence from the first years to the adult life. Thus, we have to do with quantitative change in the dynamics of the person’s functions, about which we have said that the person is not altered qualitatively, but it only changes quantitatively (see pp. 23). And, since the difference in dynamics is extreme, it looks like it is some qualitative alteration and alienation of the person. Yet, it is about the change in the proportions of the person’s synthesis, and not about the quality of the person’s synthesis. Thus, schizophrenia cannot be or perceived, and the person does not receive the invasion of another person.

The schizophrenic symptoms, such as disconnection of feelings, since they do not constitute schizophrenia, but, as we have proven, they are great quantitative changes, they also mean great quantitative changes in the field of patronization too.

This means that the patronized ego (i.e. personal operation related to patronization) is also claimed. That is “I choose or I want to be patronized on the X subject in the Y way to an N grade”. This is obviously an egotic function. We remind about the last vertebra. That is also part of our self (therefore, metaphorically, of our spiritual organism). The disconnection, the disharmony and the split, since they do not exist, then, instead of disconnection, we have great quantitative differentiation of a personal function from another one. If we say that each personal function is depicted as a column, and the total of them is a series of columns, then, if a column CA is increased or decreased very much in comparison with a nearby CB, and we suppose the existence of a membrane which unifies them (where the membrane stands for the biological-spiritual balance-functionality-harmony), this membrane is expanded in a grade so large that, in terms of the person’s behavior, the membrane ends up to not be apparent, or be shown as broken. In this way the

[46]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

psychiatrists and the psychologists diagnose schizophrenia. Yet, according to our theory, the “membrane” never breaks. Even in the most extreme case, that is when we have degeneration (see pp. 39-43), the “membrane” doesn’t break and it is not absent in any way.

So then, we understand that we cannot be based on the reality of the parts of the soul that have the function which allows our being patronized by others, in order to explain the schizophrenia. Neither can we reject the logic about the claim on the ego, which we have here developed, by using the (certainly) natural reality of the patronization. And the acceptance of the patronization is egotic (personal) function and obviously for this function there goes the same as for all the other functions, and we have analyzed these notions and realities here in this theory.

And, of course, since the function of accepting the patronization is obviously egotic function, it is in this way explained the receipt of models (e.g. behavioral models) too. And so we make the distinction between the conscientious (normal) receipt of a model and the internalization of a person as this being a claim on the ego and an insufficient sense-perception of the own person.

We wrote above that the acceptance of patronization comes from the weakness, the passiveness and the inexperience of the human in life. One could say that these characteristics refer only to the patronization, that is they are about the functions of the person (the ego) concerning the patronization, since their nature matches the sentiments of accepting the patronization. Thus the person is beaten only in terms of the as referred egotic area, and not in other areas, as one of them could be an active and dynamic area. Thus, the whole subject does not lie in the confusion of persons according to the claim on the ego but in the egotic functions regarding the patronization. Yet, we should here clarify that this is not so, and we can see this through a simple example: If I take a book in my hands, I may very well read it without a trace of passiveness in me, or without a sense that the author is a master. This book may be a theory in mathematics. The things that I will read may find me opposed; they may not agree with my beliefs and with my way of thought.

Despite my opposition, nevertheless, it is possible that I may not be able to prove that the theory is wrong, and so to have no choice other than to accept the writings.

The notion “have no choice other than to accept”, depicts nothing else but the mood and feelings of someone who chooses to be patronized. Simply, the logic and reason of the reader is not enough strong as to beat the logic of the book. (That is, of

The Theory of the Person

[47]

course, in the case where the book is wrong, or else there is not a matter of winning or being defeated, for the reader rather loves and believes in the value of rationality). So, the subject is not the patronization, but the claim on the ego. If anything, as we also wrote above, the patronization too, is obviously an egotic function: “I choose to be patronized”, “I am being patronized”. And, of course, these personal functions-elements too, are included in the logic of the claim on the ego and of the confusion of the persons. The as referred feelings are mine, but someone may want to change them in me; to claim my personal truth and freedom, which I have about being patronized; this which is stated as “I am patronized. Yet, in any case, the claim on the ego is impossible and non-existent.

We should here say that the “I have no choice other than to accept”, which in our example regard the logic, they certainly regard any other function of the person too: the logical, the emotional, and the willful functions-elements. The book that we read consists of codes (written language) and responds to our mental codes; out logic. Codes are also constituting the emotion, since this is minding (consider the “Emotional Intelligence” [1]), but of course the will is so too.

The “I am patronized”, as being obviously an egotic function, that is a function of our self, our nature, it entails the conscientious, free and naturalhealthy position of our own person in relation with the patronization that someone exercises on us. So, it is very reasonable to accept the help from someone in e.g. a difficult or specialized scientific problem about which our knowledge and ability is minor. Yet, this we do conscientiously and with our knowledge, as we wrote. Thus, here we do not have the element of passiveness in terms of conscience and values, and that means we do not have victimization. On the contrary, our conscience and our values prompt us to receive this help. Therefore, the acceptance of patronization is essentially an active function and position of ours, something which is different from the immaturity of childhood, about which the patronizing we parallelized with the last vertebra of our vertebra column, in reference with the time that the human is yet mature and independent spiritually, that is when the human is self-conscious.

-------- --------

[48]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

We analyzed and proved that I am not able to refer to the subjectivity (or wholeness) of the other person and claim it, that is my functioning in place of the other person from his/ her inside (i.e. claiming on another ego), but also that in a similar way I cannot claim the own ego – my ego (i.e. objectification of the ego). It is impossible and non-existent to claim so much an egotic function (e.g. “I play ball”) as much the egotic wholeness, that is what I am; the totality of functions, situations, elements, etc. of my mind and spirit. The essence of the present theory accumulates in the statement “I am”. Could it be equally valid with the statement “I am” e.g. the “I act”, that is e.g. “I play ball”? No, because the verb “(I) am” synopsizes all the functions. This is simple: I am who play ball, and, in general, act. Thus the “am”, that is the being of the person, precedes any other characteristic-verb. We cannot reverse the logical-verbal formulation-statement and say “I act who am”.

Irrationality emerges in the word and in logic. As we understand, the being of the person –I am– synopsizes every function and part of the person. Thus, for every partial occasion, need, wish, pathology, and so on, of the person, the formulationstatement “I am” is the reduction in the cure, that is in the quantitative restoration of our person-spirit. That is in the quantitative restoration, as we develop it in this theory – having proven that the changes are only quantitative and never qualitative.

The statement “I am” constitutes and synopsizes the proof that the confusion and the claiming of the persons does not exist, but also the intrapersonal confusion-claim does not exist either. As we prove, the referred confusions-claims are the only factors for the single pathology and disease that exists for the person/spirit: the quantitative change or alteration. The more we function the referred false perception about personal confusion and claim (with our thought, mind, conscious, subconscious, etc.), the more we get ill. The cure is located in the expelling of this false spiritual function-perception. And also, we may have the absolute awareness of that the quality of our spirit never changes, not the least, even in the case where we are repressed, no matter how much repressed we may be [2]. We can have the absolute self-confidence in our identity. The absolute nature of our spiritual identity, that is its being absolutely unchangeable, comes from the whole present theory. Consequently, the knowledge, the perception, the selfconscience, etc. About the unchangeableness and the undefeated-ness of our spiritual identity, constitutes it itself the cure from any mental-spiritual disease and

The Theory of the Person

[49]

failure. As we also examine and prove the subject of the person from the psychiatric aspect too (fifth unit), the factor of any kind does not change the spiritual identity (or spiritual DNA), but what changes is only the quantity. So then, the knowledge about the nature of our spiritual identity is here revealed and is synopsized, substantially-given, in the statement-formulation “I am”. Consequently, the therapy lies in the statement and experience “I am”.

And, since the cure of any kind lies upon the statement and experience “I am”, therefore the referred statement constitutes the any cure, then, simply, the any cure is reduced in the statement “I am”, which statement synopsizes (accumulates) this whole present theory. Consequently, whether the human knows about this theory or not, whether he/ she refers to the knowledge of the present theory or not, the any cure is apprehended and conducted in the human (the person), to the grade and in the way that it is indeed cure, he/ she is reduced in the statement “I am”, and as to this, in the present Theory of the Person. And, the issue of to which grade and in what way a cure is really a cure, this is judged –securely– by the present theory. And, surely, it is not possible and normal that we are each and every moment referring to the Theory of the Person. There are, as well, other thoughts, emotions, wishes and experiences for us to be living. We, simply, refer everything to the Theory of the Person, so that everything is correct and healthy.

-------- -------In pages 19-20 we referred in the internalization in its pathological aspect.

The well comprehended internalization which has benefits in our psychology and life, although it is called internalization, yet this surely doesn’t mean that the other person has “entered in us”, that is we don’t have confusion or replacement of persons and personal elements. This is so for we have proven so.

We have written that I cannot refer to “your ego” but that I can very well and normally refer “to you”, that is I can perceive you in any way (pp. 12-14). Let’s take the perception of a non-personal entity which, as non-personal, (see pp. 19-20), it does not threaten us, at least in a level of confusion of persons, thus of internalization. I see before me a rock the shape of which is triangular. I perceive the triangular shape. I store it in my memory and imagination. And, what’s more, I can find relations between angles and sides, etc., therefore consider and generally think

[50]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

on this shape. Later on, I grab some clay in my ands and reproduce the shape of the rock. This reproduction is a function of my person/spirit, which has “in it” the rock.

But do I have a rock in me? No; I have in my mind the perception, the comprehension, the experience, the sense, etc. of the rock. So then, since I do not have a person in me either, as we have proven, then what I have in me is the perception, the comprehension, the experience, the sense, etc. of him/ her. And, the so-called “internalization” which brings about the reproduction of e.g. the behavior of the other person, just as we have the reproduction of the rock through the clay, it is then called internalization in the sense of perceiving the other and in general the spiritual correlation with the other.

And there comes naturally the conclusion that, since there is no internalization and we comprehend the fact that we are not confused with the other one, we, as a consequence, perceive the him/ her in a way much more correct and realistic. Other is the other and other is me. And, since I perceive and experience the other human as this who he/ she is, without confusing his/ her elements with elements of me, this perception and experience of mine is the genuine, the real. Of course, maybe some elements of him/ her are similar with some of my elements or I may want to imitate some of his/ her elements, yet this is what essentially operates the well-comprehended “internalization”, that is the perception and reproduction which we referred.

-------- -------It is obvious that the repression of personal functions affects the complexity of priorities, about which we have made word (p. 17), and which is the evolution of the person – its reaction to the internal and external facts that emerge by time.

Indeed, given the perplexity and multi-composition of the person, the quantitatively changed personal energies-functions-elements constitute and operate a different evolution, to a smaller or greater extent, depending on the magnitude and case of the quantitative deviation.

On the other hand, the properly modified evolution, that is the change in the complexion of priorities, it obviously affects therapeutically the repressed personal functions, since they too –repressed or not– belong in the as proven unbreakable personal synthesis.

The Theory of the Person

[51]

C. The proof of the Person-centered Psychotherapy and Pedagogics We spoke about the repression of the ego – the egotic functions. Yet, what happens when a personal function, instead of being repressed, it is increased, that is e.g. a will is overall encouraged and it gets out of the quantity which is predicted by the organism? Here we have a decline from the subject of the personal function. A personal function may be a will. E.g. I want (or I like) to eat sweets in medium quantity. The hyper-nurturing of this will or likeness will lead me adoring the sweets and eat too many of them. I deviate, therefore, from my subject and my goal, which is eating e.g. two sweets a day, and from the tension of my likeness. The fact that the tension f my likeness changes, this also constitutes aimlessness, since I loose my sense about sweets; the sense that is defined by my nature.

The aimlessness, as the deviation from the goal, is what makes the individual less self-achieved; to be less successful. The same, of course, goes for the repression of the ego. Thus, in the person, both in the case of repression and in the case of increase, the good aim and success of it is repressed. Yet, is it not that the good aim and the success are everything in terms of the egotic functions of any kind? And, of course, the repression of good aim in both cases is quantitative change of egotic functions.

The consideration of hyper toning (exaggeration) as being repression of the ego is something other than the progress and the strengthening of the ego (of the person – in favor of correctness), which progress, of course, is in the nature of the human. This strengthening is made through the experience and the drill, but also through the maturation of the organism. So the priorities and the facts are changing, depending on the conditions, the preconditions and in terms the complexions of the personal functions, with no essential alteration of the very specific functions (see pp. 17-18) As regards the psychotherapy and pedagogics, since any dealing with the person –whether repressive or encouraging– in which the person is not respected, it doesn’t change it qualitatively, so then the lack of respect for the facts and characteristics of the person is meaningless [3]. The lack of respect could possibly have some meaning in the case that the therapist or the teacher, in truly believing

[52]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

he/ she has the truth, he/she was able to change the quality of the people to who he/ she addresses for the better, in order to save them so that they don’t harm themselves and the others. Yet, since the quality doesn’t change, the only thing achieved is the repression of the persons. And, what good could emerge from that?

To the grade in which we want strong and healthy people, the person-central consideration of psychotherapy and pedagogics is our way. And, the realities that are revealed in the present theory inspire in us the sense about the person (see e.g. pp. 17-34), but they also deter us from the tragic situation of confusing the persons, by showing us how senseless this confusion is, since this is interpreted as “I are” or “you am”, etc. (see pp. 19-23, etc.).

And, of course, the person-centered movement is not restrained only in the doctor’s office and in the school. Neither is it only in the relationship of parent and child. In any case that we have relationship of person with person, the issue of respect and correct consideration of the person is set [4]. And, of course, there are not only the interpersonal relations, but also the intrapersonal one. We ought and we are able to be respecting and loving our self. If anything, there cannot be that we “claim on our own ego”!

Our relationship with our own ego is our relationship with our own person, since there is not “the ego”, but “the person”. We, therefore, have to do with the intrapersonal relationship –relationship with the self– which is the different case that the interpersonal relationship – relationship with the other one. Thus, the referred relationship is expressed as self-esteem, self-perception, self-evaluation, and so on.

And, since, as we have said and it is obvious, the personal energies are not only atomistic (that aim in our individual), but also altruistic and mixes of altruismindividualism, then that the “claim on our ego” cannot stand from us ourselves means that it cannot be that we claim nor our egotic energies that concern in the any feelings, thoughts, convictions, etc, about the others. We understand therefore that the reliable consideration and attitude toward our own person in its so much fundamental dimension, as this is proved in the present work, does not promote the individualism (or the, erroneously expressed, “egocentricity”). Nor, however, do we claim, from the other hand, that also the individualism or the narcissism is “bad”.

Already, the word “bad”, that we stated, is not consistent with the nature of our theory because here we do not deal with moral situations, but fundamentally with

The Theory of the Person

[53]

the subject of considering the person(s). The person are the foundation; the principle of regarding the good and bad, the reasonable and absurdity, the beautiful and ugly, and so on. Our expressing here about the good and villain, and so on, while we found the incontestableness and the freedom of the person, it would be cancellation of probative of the present work, since it would be a effort of “claiming on the ego” of you who read these, and not only. If anything, as we proved, your person cannot be claimed, hence I the writer would be as if I have already forgotten what I have just written.

As regards the subject of internal conflicts, it is obvious that it is about the competition of an egotic energy with another. May we say, it has as follows: “I believe A, while I want X”. The “I be believe A” with “I want X” cannot be combined, or at least they are not combined to the grade that the individual is calm and functional. Here we have we do with the interpersonal relationship, in which we were referred above, since also element A and element X are functioned by me, hence are parts (convictions, wishes) of my self and are functioned as “i…”. Hence, provided that we speak for conflict, the one energy tends to be claiming the other.

We, therefore, have to do with claim on the ego, and indeed with claiming the own ego, that is to say intrapersonally. Of course, not the all conflicts are of claiming character. Provided that what is valid in the interpersonal level it is also valid in intrapersonal level –at least in the level of the claiming, as we have it developed– and an interpersonal conflict may not be in pathological level, the conflicts they are not always loss-making and undesirable. In the pathological level, however, it is obvious that we have we make with the claim. And provided that the claim is not nothing other than quantitative alteration, then in the the internal conflict the one egotic energy changes quantitatively the other. Hence, the “spiritual DNA” of personal elements-functions, in their relating with each other, does not change (pp.

20-22) and this means that they are not alienated from each other. The conflict, therefore, no matter how much it may constitute internal competition and internal war, with consequences even degenerative for the nervous system (pp. 39-43), however it does not cause division, disconnection and alienation inside the person.

We have written that the claim on the ego moves in the frames of the relationship with the other egos-persons. An impersonal stimulus, like the water that flows in a stream (see. pp. 19-20), since it does constitute a person and is not homologous to our person, it does not raise a subject of claim-alteration. Yet, since

[54]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

we speak about the claim of the own ego (that is to say, a part of our personal self), it is basic here that we say that in the contact and cross-correlation with any non personal stimulus, as the one that we report above, when there exists dysfunctionality and in general we cannot make it and fail (weakness of successfelicity, see the present chapter) then there is created contrasting stress, since, e.g., from the one hand we want to accomplish something and from the other we don’t (cannot) think of it. As it is natural, with this logic, conflicts we have between a will and a thought, in two wills from each other, in will and sentiment, etc. Provided that therefore we have disagreement between interpersonal energies, we then speak for claim of the own ego. We refer in what we have written right above about the internal conflicts. Provided that therefore in our relation with the inanimate things, there is also applied the logic of the claim on the ego, this means that any pathology constitutes quantitative alteration of personal energies. Any psychosis and neurosis are comprehended as quantitative change of dynamics of the personal system (soul). All the psychological problems, all the mental diseases are comprehended in this way. Besides, as we below write, in the unit on the application of the present theory in Psychiatry, even a lesion in the brain or a pathological influence from a chemical substance, hereditary and developmental factors, they are comprehended as quantitative alterations. In the same chapter we prove why there cannot appear a qualitative alteration in any part of the brain, even if it is about developmentally-genetic reasons, and we extend our proof up to utmost depths: the first moment of existence of person – his/ her conception. This proof, therefore, as from its nature, substantially includes the any causes, hence also the causes from inanimate stimuli, in which we are referred here.

However, since we here found the person-centered theory and value, and we were referred in the influence from person to person, let’s also refer in the case where, whether the person-centered principle is applied or not (that is, the communication-relation with the other person and the service of this according to his/ her givens) however a particular or some elements of the personal identity of a person (Pa) do not resemble enough with the ones of another person (Pn), or even these elements-energies differ completely between the Pa and Pn. In this case, beyond the obvious, that is the fact that in the level of not correlated elementssides, the communication is not feasible, and in general the relation between the persons is not feasible, we do not have pathological interpersonal influence either.

The Theory of the Person

[55]

And, this is so always in the degree and from the aspect that the Pa and Pn cannot relate with one another. Provided that, as we have proved, the claim of the person equals the interpersonal confusion, which is formulated as “I are” or “you am”, etc. (pp. 19-23, etc.), in the non correlated Pa and Pn the interpersonal confusion cannot be formulated/stated. As we write in pp. 48-49, the formulation/statement “I am” summarizes and includes the whole of the elements and energies that are stated and exist as “I…”. If, therefore, the Pa and Pn in terms of some issue of theirs –personal area of them– are connected negligibly or by no means, and hence there is not comprehended a correlation and communication, then neither is feasible the formulation “I are” or “you am”. If, that is to say, Pa functions, e.g., “I believe a”” and Pn functions “I believe n”, and a and n cannot be correlated, then there cannot be formulated “I believe” (in which the word [believe] belongs in the second person; “you”) and “you believe” (in which the word [believe] belongs in the first person; “I”). And this, because for Pa there cannot exist (that is, comprehended) n, and for Pn there is not a. And, also, because the “ego” is always followed by some elementenergy as “I…” –and, consequently, the part “I” and its energies, that are exercised obviously as “I…”, that are unbreakably connected– thus Pa cannot receive only the part “you” from Pn and be formulated as “you believe” (where the word [believe] is this of “I believe”). Hence, therefore, we do not have a claim on person, that is to say we do not have repression-quantitative alteration, which is, as we have proved, the only existent pathology.

[56]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

D. The proof of the Synthetiki (Integrative) Psychotherapy Provided that the energies of person (the ego), that is the psycho-spiritual energies, are not degraded qualitatively, as we have proved, then this means that we do not have evaluative alteration of the energies of the person. The changing of an egotic energy quantitatively does not mean that it changed as quality, but as power of achievement. The quality of the energy is the character of it; how it exists.

A wish of ours is a value: I want thus and not else ways; want this and not the other.

But also a reason of ours (energy that concerns the I.Q.) has its quality, hence its value. The values, therefore, are not only the moral (as the above reported wishes), but also the reasonable ones. Similarly we have also the emotional values, that is to say the way that we act emotionally.

So therefore, the synthesis of the person does not change evaluatively.

Consequently, each person-to-cure does not require particular evaluative confrontation from the therapist [4]. The particular confrontation constitutes an individual (unilateral) therapeutic mentality, provided that the therapist has judged that person-to-cure has been changed in a specific way (diagnosis of pathology).

This unilateral approach, that is to say the application by the therapist of only one psychotherapeutic model, makes sense only if we consider that the ego is altered qualitatively. And thus, we almost exclusively focus our attention in the “ill” member of the soul, which, as degraded qualitatively, will have, more or less, been alienated from the rest of the (mental) organism. That is, this member, as having a degraded “spiritual DNA”, we suppose that it behaves hostily and autonomously towards the rest of the mental synthesis (cf. p. 20-22), hence autonomous and polarized will be also the therapeutic confrontation, since this is applied in a organism which has been separated in two “rival camps”: the healthy system from the one hand and the sick, that is to say degraded –non-compatible– with the rest of the system, from the other hand. This hostility-polarisation, only on the basis of the qualitative alteration can be comprehended, as we already have said. And provided that the therapist conceives polarisation and hostility, the only thing reasonable is that he protects the healthy part of system and that he focuses in his changing, in the qualitative sense, the (as supposed) altered part of system for the better, so that

The Theory of the Person

[57]

the harmony occurs. As is obvious, the therapist polarises, that is to say, his therapeutic action so that he is to face the (supposedly) polarisation in the patient.

And this polarised treatment consists is the application of one only therapeutic model and in general one, and only one, unilateral therapeutic mentality.

On the contrary, applying the principle of synthesis in psychotherapy, we take the organization as a single whole, with its parts in harmony and lovingly tied together. This is because we calculate and estimate the patient from many different sides, since we deal with them. And this loving treatment by the therapist is certainly naturally perceived by the treated. Έτσι, συμβαίνει κάτι το υπέροχο: The patient is thus inspired to feel, think and desire it as his/ her own, the egotic energy which has been affected in him/ her. So, something wonderful happens: He realizes himself that this egotic energy, which is thought to have been altered through the internalising of the ego (illusion of internalization - see pp. 23) is essentially his own and has not been altered, only weakened.

But in also the case of alteration of one or more members of the personalitysoul of the patient (see p. 39-43), due to excessive and chronic stress, the synthetic treatment is the appropriate and the most effective. We have said that the sound and dynamic sense of the person makes us resistant against the claim of our ego, so we are not at risk of deterioration, of degeneration of our structures and powers.

And we have said that the therapist inspiring the correct sense of the person (the ego) constitutes the treatment, since through the incomplete or vague sense of the person, there is caused through the claim of it, the alteration as the degeneration in the organization of the brain (see p. 39-43). So since the Synthetiki Psychotherapy [5], i.e. Integrative Psychotherapy, or inspires the harmony among the personality parts, essentially this means that there is inspired the proper sense of the person to the treated (as we write above). Thus, the illusion on the claim of the ego (or, otherwise, the lack in the sense of the person), therefore the generating cause and center of the organic alteration, is cured. No wonder, then, that diagnosed schizophrenics are treated through the Synthetic Psychotherapy.

So therefore, the Synthetic Psychotherapy and, in general, the synthetic treatment of the soul by those who surround us, but also from ourselves to ourselves, is what inspires us to love ourselves and to have the most intimate and true attitude and perception of the inside of us.

[58]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

According to the above, the Synthetic Psychotherapy, by promoting the value of the synthesis of the person, it substantially reduces us to the fact that the person is not altered. And, through the synthetic consideration, the personal energies and properties are enhanced since the synthetic approach stems from the fact that a personal energy is never altered qualitatively –in terms of value. So then, the synthetic psychotherapist confirms the value of the person of the patient; the value of each part of his personality.

The Person Centered Psychotherapy, on the other hand, also stems from the fact that the person is not altered qualitatively (as by the proof of this theory) and its purpose is the service of the person, thus the strengthening of it. So, it has the same purpose as the Integrative/ Syhthetiki Psychotherapy.

And this coincidence in purpose and values is not at all conventional. It would be conventional if it stemmed from the value that says that the person is valuable, that man deserves respect, etc., i.e. if it stemmed from social values and morals espoused by people usually. And we mention these values and morals as conventional, not because they are not really valid, but because if they do not stem (and to the extent in which they do not derive) from the original perspectiveexperience of the person –the self and the other– they are nothing but complexional or hypocritical attitudes and behaviors. The genuine perception of the person teaches us that the person is not confused and not claimed.

This, then, perception is what is proved here, and from this perception is founded in a direct way both the Person Centered and the Synthetic Psychotherapy.

Both psychotherapeutic attitudes reflect directly to the actual approach of the person. Consequently the two psychotherapies and psychologies are of equal value.

As we have depicted, in the way there is no confusion of persons – interpersonal claim of the ego-person– there also is inexistent the claim of the same ego, i.e. intrapersonally. So, also the confusion between energies-parts within the person, it is inexistent. There is only the quantitative alteration (repression, overencouragement) through the attempted intrapersonal claim. So we clarify that it is another thing the synthesis and another thing is the confusion. Composition: definitely and absolutely. Confusion: never – only quantitative change.

The Synthetic therapist in order to achieve his / her purposes, it is recommended that he/ she suppresses or over-encourages some personal elements of the patient. Or even, he/ she may not deal with them. This is about tactics,

The Theory of the Person

[59]

because the non respect to any element or part is unfounded, as we have shown. But as in the Rubik's Cube we spoil a range of colors in order to succeed in the end the whole harmony of the color composition of the cube, so in psychotherapy. It is the tactics of priorities. So, this does not mean that the therapist will see these data in a manner hostile or opponent or indifferent. This is because not any element is understood as corrupted (i.e. with foreign spiritual DNA) compared to the other elements of the mental composition. And, any deterioration that the therapist will bring about (which, no matter the way to achieve, is essentially quantitative alteration) is not in itself the aim, or the purpose itself. When the opportunity is found and the conditions are ripe, these referred (quantitative) patient's energies should be restored. And the energies that are ill and which have not been addressed should also be treated. This is because they are anyway the person’s own energies that are consistent with the overall mental composition. Anyway, the aim is to achieve the consolidation of the totality of the psyche, which totality is composed of all parties, without exception, and this composition is correct regardless of the state of the soul, which can be healthy or sick. In The Rubik's Cube the goal is that all colored surfaces to come into harmony with each other. It makes no sense to remove or deface any inner cube to have alignment or harmony. Such removal or deformation would mean abolishing the integrity of the patient, disability or disharmony. Therefore, the cube in this case not only would it not be harmonious, but it would be very ugly too. Essentially the logic of Rubik's Cube is to avoid stressing too much the patient and not to bring him into great and undue embarrassment. According to the principle of self-sustainment, the patient may not withstand a quantitative recovery (although this, as we have shown is about the false perception of confusing the persons and the claim of the ego). So, we need a sensible progress so that the human will not break down, and in this case it is essentially about a more quantitative suppression from that which already exists and is being treated. So it is clearly a priority issue. Here we refer to the cluster of priorities for which we have talked on pp. 17-18. It is obvious that the suppression of some of the individual’s energies / components which are those which compose the whole cluster, creates different dynamics and path in the referred cluster of priorities, which essentially is the flow and progress of the person (see p. 50). We understand, then, how important is the management of the repressions to which we refer. And, certainly, in these complex of priorities, namely the development of the

[60]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

person in time - essentially, the whole course of his life – when applying the absolute truth of the synthetic psychotherapy, the good aim is ensured.

The same applies to the person-centered psychotherapy and pedagogy: it is appropriate to show disrespect, but only when we set priorities. As in the synthetic psychotherapy in the case when we function as if we do not respect the composition in order, essentially, to serve it, so in person-centered address to the person we show disrespect to the person in order to serve the strengthening of the person; i.e. to serve the empowerment, rehabilitation and the freedom of the relationship with the self: the self-esteem, self-concept, self-confidence.

What the therapist does, it obviously can apply to what the man does to himself. We also referred to the relationship with the own ego (person), i.e. the relationship with oneself, and in fact this theory deals primarily with the relationship with oneself as our main responsibility is to ourselves, once we proved that we are never alienated from ourselves. Schizophrenia is not, therefore the alienation (quality deterioration) inside the person is impossible.

We have said that the claim of the person is connected and equivalent to the confusion of persons, which is expressed (in a tragic way) as “I are” and “you am”, etc. This means that the personal energies of reference to the other –to the foreign– are weak and disharmonious with the energies of reference to the own, namely the self. On the other hand, we said just above that from ourselves we are never alienated, while in the relationship with the others this is does not happen, and so our main responsibility is to ourselves. According to what we have written above about intentional disrespect of some energies of the person, we can apply in ourselves this logic, that is in the field of the relationship of (the, anyway, own) energies to the own (i.e. self) through the (apparently, own) energies towards the foreign (i.e. the others). We can therefore, according to what we also write above, ignore and suppress greatly the (own) energies/ functions towards the Other, which is a field summarized in the statement “you are”. Thus, we avoid the tragic improprieties “I are” and “you am” as not taking into account either the “you” nor the “are”. Of course, as we have said, this is a movement and tactical mindset, because the other person is apparently existent, either from the linguistic view or from the social view and reason (if anything, these two views are the same reality, see pp. 33-35). There is not, therefore, the denial of other persons the definitive solution which we can have as a life theory when we are healthy and strong, i.e. free

The Theory of the Person

[61]

from our inability towards others. In the name, therefore, of our subjectivity or, otherwise, our person/ personality (and not our ego) it is appropriate and founded by this theory the correctness of each of us thinking/ contemplating just and only the own; the subjective – the personal. (And, it should be noted that when we consider only the own, so we are distracted and away from repressions coming from other persons, we are all-free to think and contemplate on the own/ self repressions –the suppression of good aim that we ourselves cause to ourselves.) It must be said that weakness to others not only exists in the active address by them, i.e. when firing against us, our attacking us, mocking us, blaming us, etc. Apart from the active-warlike address, there also is the address of rejection and social deprivation.

There are people who live lonely. Obviously they are not lonely and isolated because no one has ever happened to notice their presence. So, it is the rejection issue. And, rejection, no matter how much it is about one’s inertia towards someone who he rejects, nevertheless, it is position and energy of the person. Simple: I denounce you. And as far as this is made, it is correspondingly painful and overwhelming for social foreclosed one. So also here applies equally the clear and massive reduction in the own – the subjective field – in the name of the as by nature indissoluble subjectivity; our person and our personality.

It is reasonable that we retire from another person according to the extent and in the manner (emotional, cognitive, etc.) that we are threatened by the otherness. It is not necessary that the withdrawal is big and extreme, and that the withdrawal applies only in one level and in one way only. Also, it is reasonable that the withdrawal from the other persons does not exist only when they are present on our site and we perceive them with our senses. The perception of the others is also inner-theoretical.

Let us mention here that there cannot be apprehended the opposite logic from this that we just wrote. We said that in rejecting the “you are” the “he / she is”, etc., from the subjectivity (i.e. the “I am”) we save the subjectivity when needed.

However, to assume that there can stand the opposite, i.e. to reject the “I am” in favor of, e.g., the “you are”, this cannot stand at all. Whoever person is to think and act so, it is he / she thinking-acting so. This energy is expressed precisely as: “I think that only you are and I am disinterested for that I am.” Yet, the I think is included as a part/expression of I am, therefore we are lead in a contradiction: for the sake of “I

[62]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

think” we reject the “I am”, which includes the “I think” in it, and so the “I think” can not exist without the “I am”.

The Theory of the Person

[63]

E. The application of the present theory in Psychiatry In this theory we make word about the ego in the most general and fundamental dimension of it, i.e. the ego as the very person. We said that all personal energies/ functions (I want, I do, I am hungry, and so on) have as their principle; as their generator; as their subject the ego as “I ...” The person or otherwise, the soul or spirit in physical or biological or medical terms is translated as the brain; is the brain. And it is obvious that the ego (the person), so the brain, is not only operating the superior functions, i.e. functions of consciousness or intelligence, but also all the others, such as the sense of hunger (after “I am hungry”).

The application of what we linguistically or psychological say “ego” (“I”) (person) in Psychiatry, given that, as we said, the ego regards to all brain functions, is universal. It is just that in Psychiatry we try to decipher through the functions, processes and phenomena of someone’s brain what he states with the word and which we consider about him as psychological knowledge. When we hear someone talking or we see some expression on his face, it means that the words and expressions derived from corresponding brain encodings. It's like seeing, instead of someone's face, the screen of a computer. Each image and each sound of the P.C. is translated perfectly into digital encodings inside the software, which is binary and we know (at least this) how it works. This enables us to understand how our any cognitive behavior occurs in the brain, and our mouth speaking or our eyes, showing so many wonderful things, is nothing more than the “surface” of expression of our brain. Essentially, the brain talks and the brain is expressed. Even the most subtle and abstract or fundamental concepts and functions (such as language and its structures, with which we deal here), is nothing but brain functions and situations.

So, the claim on the ego, the confusion of persons and the poor sense of the person, while they are concepts which we discuss here from the cognitivepsychological and philosophical view, they cannot but have their correspondence in the psychiatric level. When I claim the ego of the other, whether this is right or

[64]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

wrong, real or not real, and how this is apprehended in general, all these about claiming, because they refer to the person (the ego) and the person (as we consider it here) is the brain, then this theory is the theory of the brain as it is the theory of the person.

Thus, if this theory proves that the confusion of the persons, thus schizophrenia, is not, this means that also within the brain there cannot be identified schizophrenia medically. As we have shown, the person is not altered qualitatively, but only quantitatively (illusion about claim and repression of the ego). This, according to the above, inevitably means that the brain, which is the person, is not altered qualitatively, but only quantitatively. This is always within the context and subject matter of this theory, which deals with the brain as the person (and, moreover, schizophrenia is apprehended as a disease of the person). Thus, any alteration or imbalance in biochemistry, etc., of the brain can not interpret schizophrenia, because, simply, this theory finds schizophrenia inexistent. All that may be true (always within the schizophrenia subject) is such mental phenomena being understood as suppression of the ego, i.e. of the –personal– energies of the brain, and as illusion of confusing the persons, that is incomplete sense of the person which, as we know, disorients largely the human and, possibly, as being so bad as it is, it also bears overt psychiatric phenomenology.

It is worth mentioning here that in that patients with (supposedly) schizophrenia socialize with people who do not exist, this shows this very incomplete sense (of the notion) of the person. And these hallucinations result from the claim on the ego. All of us make imaginary dialogues, but with the difference that we do not believe that these people really exist beside us or in front of us. And that’s because we know and keep the boundaries between the imaginary and the real. When we read a comic or watch TV we live the characters and the emotions.

But we understand that, in the comics we read, there is not a person existent, but basically a piece of paper with traces of color forming human figures. The psychotic is so much in need for claim on the person and is in so much weakness of the sense of the person that, the person simply existing in his imagination, normally, he pulls it into existence. We might call this claim on the right a person has not to exist or not to be there (although it may be somewhere away). Is in the patient so much the need for claim on the person (where the claim here is not necessarily meant as cockiness or arrogance, but as a necessity of ontological handling) that he handles

The Theory of the Person

[65]

the very fact of the existence or non- existent of a person. A non-psychotic if he feels such a need, then at most he may hand-tie a real person and set it in front of him to have it and to socialize with it. The psychotic makes this by handling not a real person, but by manipulating reality itself! And, of course, when we do not handle a person but the reality, then the victim is not another person but us, because, essentially, the reality does not change anyway. So, we change by losing the sense of reality. And, since that sense of reality regards personal situations, we essentially lose the sense of the person; both of the other and of our own person, that is of ourselves (incomplete sense of the person, for which we have made word).

We can say that we claim our selfsame own ego since by giving existence to someone who is not, you commit ontological claim and this is something that affects you as the other person (the only real person). And this is natural and expected, since you expose your existence into something existentially so wrong.

Since, essentially, you take the existential responsibility of the other (you have brought him into existence), then he has claims towards your completely uncontrollable. A fantastic being is capable of everything, because nothing binds it.

Essentially this being is in your mind, which, however, mind of yours does not understand this. So it is your mind this which essentially has no control in facts and reality, since it does not controls the distinction between fantasy and actually existing. And, this uncontrolled situation is projected and reflected in the imaginary person. So, is it not that this does not end up being great claim on your ego from you the same? Here we see that the human, without the presence and influence of other people is experiencing claim on his ego, which claim is has the known manifestations of schizophrenia, which we mentioned above. And we talked about the connection of the claim on the ego with schizophrenia from the psychiatric point of view, that view being the medical study of such illusions.

But there are also people who, instead of getting the “existential responsibility� of some imaginary person, they get the existential responsibility of their own self and call into question the fact that they exist... This existential responsibility, here, concerns not a non-existent person, but the absolutely real, that is our self. Totally real, because there is no way that I’m not here where I am, that I am not just like I am, that do not exist. The absoluteness of the own existence is absoluteness because we are dealing with identity: I am I. It is the concept of identity in mathematics: A = A. This ontological command-claim behaves conversely

[66]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

in relation with the ontological claim of another person, for the simple reason that I exist for sure and absolutely (in the sense of A = A), thus I, objectively and really, can not, and is of no sense, to bring myself into being. For this reason I do what I have left to do, namely to doubt that I exist.

Nevertheless, the whole situation is not schizophrenia. The claim on the ego is simply suppress of the power of the person (quantitative and not qualitative alteration-division-separation of personality parties – see pp. 20-22) and comes from the illusion about the ego claim and the poor sense of the person, which is psychosis-illusion.

We talked about “ontological manipulation” of a person and about “claim of the right” that has a person to not exist (or to exist when it comes to our self) and we explained that these are essentially the claim on the ego, which has the central role in our theory. Because these hallucinations are from the non-being (i.e., we do not misrepresent, but create the image and the words of an existing person), then the claim on the ego, from which they derive, is the most fundamental and most blatant claim on ego. That is, provided that the nature of the claim is ontological, the subject ends up raw; so raw as it gets no more. Let us allow a parallel: It’s like the raw flesh, which the psychotic minces with the knife and eats it too... And of course he eats it, since the conversation with a nonexistent person means that the patient perceives the words of the other “person”, which is dead as the flesh (i.e. nonexistent), raw and bloody (it is, i.e., horrible, as it is not there) and the patient hears his words, so he is intellectually nourished by them. Είναι, δηλαδή, σα να λέει ή να σκέφτεται: We see, then, that we are dealing with central and nuclear psychosis in terms of considering the persons. And since the center and the core of this central and nuclear psychosis is the claim on the ego, then the patient is addressed directly to the issue of claim on the person. It is, i.e., as if him saying or thinking: “I will claim this person and I will claim it universally, i.e. existentially; I will handle his own existence issue”. This he makes subconsciously, but also consciously, as the illusion is the conscious: he sees the man. So, here we do not just have a simple influence of one person on the person of the other, as it could be an insult of a child by his parent, who says “you do not want e, you want z!” (see pp. 30-31) , where we don’t have dispute-claim on the person as a person existentially, but rather an energy-status of a person, who denies it indirectly and partially. In the ontological case, however, there arises the issue of the fact of the claim, that is the theme of

The Theory of the Person

[67]

whether a person is claimed or not! It is, namely, the selfsame logic of the claim on the ego, which we analyze in this theory, and we have proved that the person is not claimed. The patient, therefore, is ill in the sphere of the philosophy and ontological consideration-perception of the person. And, the correct approach is based on the verbal consistence, which rejects the phrases: “my / your / his ego” , “I are”, “you am”, etc. The persons, i.e. the people, the animals, we conceived as beings and appearances with the senses. Therefore, the visual and auditory hallucinations reflect existentially in the claim on the person (or, otherwise, in the confusion of persons or the misconception of the person). So, we are dealing with the question of the existence of the claim, i.e. whether there is this claim. So, to the extent that the patient will get to know and experience the truths of this theory, he/ she will be healed by the illusions.

And, this theory proves that persons are not confused with one another. This knowledge is offered here. The persons who are not confused are not necessarily only the selfsame person and someone else / another. That is, not just me and you or he / she. It is also about two or more other persons between them. What relevance does this have? We wrote just above about the ontological event – the question of the fact of the claim. And we said that in this case we refer directly and intact to this theory for treatment. This theory is The Theory of the Person.

Therefore, it refers to any person. So, obviously, it not only demonstrates the nonexistence of the confusion and of the claim on the self person in the relationship with the other persons, but also the non-confusion / claim of any person in relation to any other. Now, that the psychotic mistakenly believes the fact and reality of the relationship of himself with the others on the topic of interpersonal claim / confusion, means that he considers contrary to the knowledge of this theory. And, as we said, this theory refers to the interpersonal relationship generally. Consequently, in that the psychotic considers contrary to the knowledge of this manuscript, does not at all exclude that the patient regards, feels, perceives, etc., the relationships between the other individuals as relations within which persons claim one another, are confused and replaced with one another.

And, of course, this wrong attitude / approach about the other persons between them is not only found in the case of the human who is so abnormal as to make the aforementioned “ontological manipulation”. In this theory we prove that any pathology involves the concept of personal confusion / claim, and any

[68]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

pathology is of quantitative, and only, nature. The alteration is only quantitative and not qualitative. And, since the pathology has one and only core –the intrapersonal and interpersonal confusion / replacement / claim– which core is in its content false, and, simply, the pathology is only the quantitative change, this means that any pathology in the person differs from any other quantitatively. This means that we find errors in the consideration and experience of the relations of the other persons between them, in any abnormal human. Simply, obviously, the degree of pathology varies per case.

Above, apart from the ontological-existential handling of a non-existent person, where from the inexistence it passes in existence, we also referred to the ontological manipulation of the self –the selfsame person– wherefrom the existence “passes” in “nothingness” and the human wonders or denies that he/ she exists.

And, as in an illusion the psychotic “brings” to existence another person, where whatever this (supposed) “person” may say, do, show, etc., that “person” does not exist, i.e. its manifestations cannot exist, in the reverse mode, the psychotic, although what he says, does, etc., are apparently existent, he challenges them ontologically and completely, since he challenges the very existence of him. So the statement “I am”, in this case corresponds to the formulation “I exist”. Therefore, the reduction in the formulation “I am” (which formulation is the center of all of our theory, and is applied as by the knowledge of the theory –see pp. 48-49) heals the human who is not comfortable with the fact of his own existence.

We can here say that, as we have shown in Chapter A, the claim on the ego (the own or the other’s) is confusion of persons, which does not exist, and what exists is only the quantitative change of the person, or, otherwise, the suppression of good aim (see p. 51). So , the human who befriends nonexistent persons or believes that he himself does not exist, apparently suffers from great depression rate of good aim in his personal energies and powers relating to perception, sense, consideration, experience of the another persons and the own person.

Here we note the following: we connected the person by the psychologicalphenomenological aspect with the brain by the psychiatric-neurological aspect beneath the light of the person (the ego). The psychiatric-neurological side considers the brain as the body; as object. On pp. 18-20 we talked about homologous sizes and we explained how the claim-replacement is actually repression and quantitative change, and not qualitative deterioration. The connection that we

The Theory of the Person

[69]

make here, that is that the person-subject is the brain-object makes a hetero (outof-the-subject) object, such as a stone or a chemical substance, homologous to the brain. Consequently, also in the case that an object such as a stone or a chemical threatens our brain, we have claim-replacement. I.e. we have quantitative and only quantitative altering of the brain-person. If, that is, between two persons, Dimitris and George, there cannot be confusion and replacement of personal data, the same thing applies between the brain and a stone. A stone and a cluster of neurons are equally material-objective existence. And, the group of neurons has the subjective substance equally as the objective substance. The threat, then, by the stone, as a threat which it is, it can not but act as an attempted claim on the quality and coherence of the brain. But this claim is claim on the person, since the brain is the person. We therefore have claim on the person by a homologous size. This thus means quantitative, and quantitative only, alteration of the person.

We connected, therefore, the personality from the psychologicalphenomenological aspect with the brain from the psychiatric-neurological aspect beneath the light of the person (the ego), and we said that the pathology so much on the one as much on the other hand are summarized in the illusion about the claim on the ego and about the internalization, in the confusion of persons and in the poor sense or perception of the person. Therefore, the treatment of the psychotic (i.e., the so-called schizophrenic) should be the treatment of these illusions, claims and incomplete senses-perceptions at both psychotherapeutic and psychiatric level. It is no matter if the causes of the disease are hereditary, developmental or other as an injury to the brain. Since the disease refers in the person, the treatment should be of personal character. That is, the therapist should bear in mind that he/ she is dealing with a person, whether having the human in front of him/ her, so then we have social interaction of therapist-treated, or he/ she sees the brain of the patient on a monitor. But to what extent can we “obtain� such a consideration by looking at a screen and studying the brain as a body? The brain is so incredibly complex that the grasp or even suspect that this mass of nerves, which we simply grope with our eyes, is a person, is a science fiction scenario, at least. This is explained as follows: The brain as a body we see only with the logic and science, so almost only with our conscious part. The psychotherapeutic session, on the other hand, has the therapist and the treated communicate as two people, that is in the way defined by nature, and with the tools and data that has defined for us our

[70]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

evolution as a human race. This means that we understand the other with perceptions developed by tens of millions of years back... We understand with the conscious but also with the unconscious; with the spirit, but also with the body; within the physical space and time, etc. So are we able, and so have we learned to feel each other as a person; as another human being. Therefore, in trying to summarize in our logic, and indeed in only one area of our logic, called psychiatric logic, a person, this constitutes a paradox. And this for the nature of the society of persons defines that a person be associated with a person, and not with a little bit of a person –which is called psychiatric property– a whole person, the brain. So, that is, we try to “fit” in a small piece of our person-brain (our piece called psychiatric status) a whole person-brain. And this creates redundancy. It creates an awesome “condensation”, and this is the paradox. Given, however, that science –here the Psychiatry– is among the main progressive forces of man, this referred paradox condensation-redundancy, it creates redundancy of efficiency in mental therapy. Of course, this dense power, if not treated properly, i.e. if the doctor does not have the wisdom to properly understand these strong messages and data of his science and research, then the results can be very unpleasant. But psychology too has enough degree of “condensation” in that it follows the method and theory for the soul, which is characterized by expertise, i.e. something similar to psychiatry as a positive knowledge, but simply on another level and to a lesser extent of “condensation”. The smallest concentration makes it less of a challenge, therefore less drastic, but also more natural (natural communion of persons), thus more effective, on the other hand.

So if schizophrenia is predominantly the disease of the person, we understand that to decode in the brain is something we are very far from, and it may as well be impossible, since a “density” is required, and that may not be able to “fit” into any “psychiatric container”. Schizophrenia is predominantly the disease of the person. So, in order to find psychiatric causes for schizophrenia we should first find the person within the brain!! And if we succeed, more or less, then, given that we will see the person in the brain, we will inevitably rely on what we show here for the person and the integrity of the ego. So, again we will come to that there is not detected schizophrenia. But this time, not because we will not have enough data available to us, but because we will have been reduced in the study of schizophrenia in terms of the person, i.e. the split of the mind, thus the claim on the

The Theory of the Person

[71]

ego, the insufficient perception of the person and the confusion. So, we come to that schizophrenia not only is it not detected; schizophrenia is a myth!

It might seem very strange the brain, this mass of cells with synapses between them, not to be torn. That’s because the neurological consideration of the brain is mechanical in its nature, as a material system that the brain is. But we remind that the brain and the person are the same thing; the same reality viewed from two different aspects. Therefore, even if in a mechanical manner we try to exclude or to remove two brain regions between them, this operation will cause a quantitative alteration in the person-brain, rather than qualitative. We could, for example, inject a metal surface inside a brain in trying to split some brain functions from one another. But this is a quantitative rather than a qualitative alteration. The mechanistic nature of this energy does not need to confuse us and be absorbed by the image of this metal surface. This surface can be tough as material, but need not be dazzled by the material characteristic, because we are talking about the brain as the person. The brain is spirit and it has its spiritual DNA (see p. 20-22). The metal object is spiritually alien and is like the inline thorn, for which we made word (pp.

39-43). So in essence we are dealing with degeneration, i.e. extreme quantitative alteration, and not qualitative deterioration. We fail, therefore, to break the brain.

Indeed: the interstitial metal allows connections and communication from one side to another, as we are not talking about full mechanical cleavage of a portion of the brain from the rest of the brain. That is, even I we see the subject mechanistically, the alienation is not assured. The alienation from the mechanical aspect is ensured by closing in a watertight cube a part of the brain, so that there is (mechanisticallymaterialistic) no contact of the cells of the said portion with the remainder of the cellular system. So we do have autonomy, so we do not have quantitative changes, but qualitative ones. The quantitative alteration corresponds, as we said in the degeneration. So, the qualitative alteration, which we mentioned, in what does it correspond? It obviously corresponds to the death of the autotomized area. So, for what autonomized region are we eligible to speak, since this is killed, that is nonexistent? But even in the most optimistic and imaginary scenario in which this piece might live for a few seconds, what will the functions be and how will they express themselves so as to be talking about functions of the human-person? If anything, as we explain and analyze below, in order to apprehend a brain region or a cerebral element as autonomized, it should communicate its autonomy to the

[72]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

other parties in order to be an autonomy apprehended and conceived. Therefore, also in the case of both the aforesaid metal surface and the sealed cube, the impossibility of communication with the rest of the brain, partially or completely, means the non-information of autonomy, partially or completely. As much is the inability for information so much is the inability to be displayed schizophrenia. Let’s not get confused, then, and let us not fear the concept of secession, because in the level of our spirit, things are completely different. Let us trust our spirit in its psychiatric expression, which may not be omnipotent, but of material nature and of certain features (which, of course, we do not know thoroughly), but it is single, harmonious and fair.

Let us say here that we might be surprised also about the case “schizophrenia” is observed in some certain phase of human development. I.e. in the case that the reasons are inherited and do not stem from traumatic relationships with parents, and generally relations with others, then how can we prove as based on what we have written that schizophrenia is non-existent? The answer to this is simple and clear. Since we talk about the brain as the person (because this is, if anything, what we are interested in) and in this chapter we connected the biological consideration, with the personal one, then any biologicalneurological-psychiatric condition may occur, and for which we believe is not related to interpersonal relationships (i.e. psychological factors –that, in anyway, are also psychiatric), this condition is definitely placed in the field of interiority or individuality; namely the intrapersonal relationship. The brain as a person not only acts interpersonally, but also intrapersonally. This is obvious. And since the psychiatric aspect of the brain and the psychological-personal view are the two sides of the same coin, then any schizophrenic symptom, as split or alienation of two parties-functions of the CNS, is considered as bad relationship of a part of our soul with a another part thereof. That is there is a problem in the relation with the self (see p. 53) or, otherwise, a personal energy countering another (see pp. 53-54).

We, that is, an ego (egotic element, or else, personal energy) countering another ego (another personal energy) into the same human. And certainly this interpretation covers us, because, as we have said, everything is expressed and functioned as “I...”, and even primary functions such as hunger (“I am hungry”). So, we are dealing with claim on the selfsame ego, for which we refer to pages 53 and 54 (on internal conflicts), where we explain that an function of the person, thus of the brain, in

The Theory of the Person

[73]

being directed-associated with another of the same person, it cannot be apprehended as alienated from it, because it there is no claim on the ego (qualitative alteration) but only quantitative alteration. That is, the spiritual DNA remains the same among each other; there is no possibility that it is changed.

Therefore, also the hereditary factors as causes of “schizophrenia” shall be construed as incomplete-fuzzy sense-perception of the (own) person, for which we have made word repeatedly, and we have said that this mistake in consideration of the person brings about quantitative, and only, changes.

Yet, to what extent the issue of mistake in sense or perception of the own person can cover the issue of development, which is a biological process? According to scientists’ hypotheses, some hidden genetic tendencies appear in certain age, so changes occur in the CNS, which, of course, are understood as biological changes.

And so unity is disrupted inside the mind which appears “split”. Are we able, therefore, taking into account the development and genes that appear to have no relationship (at least directly) with the sense and perception of the person, to support what we have written so far?

As we have said, autonomy or detachment means qualitative alteration in organic level, i.e. alteration of personal or otherwise, spiritual DNA. If a personal energy changes –which is very natural and common, for as beings we are not static– then, to consider this change as organic lesion, thus autonomy-cut, what needs to be done? How would we judge this personal energy (or part of the person) as autonomized? Is it not that this energy needs to be referred to the other energiesparts so that it is shown if it is foreign to them, thus cut off? As in the interpersonal level, for n individual to “dissociate his position” from the total of the other ones, he must know the position of the others, so is in the case of the intrapersonal level. We used italicized the word “know” because, in the intrapersonal level, which is the nervous system, it is all a matter of information. Brain functions are coding functions (see pp. 63-64), thus informative functions. So, a personal element or part (as a group of neurons) is an informative element-part. So the being of that element is identified with the concept of information.

So, an element in order to be autonomized, it should be related informatively with the other data-elements-parties. This is because if this element does not know the location (e.g., value, belief) of the other parts, and the other elements do not know the place-position of it, then how shall autonomy be regarded? We remind

[74]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

that the elements are information, so as information they are to relate or autonomize.

We have demonstrated that personal functions do not alter each other, since there cannot be considered the claim on the ego (i.e. the personal functions), and also the confusion of persons, and therefore also of the personal functions in interatomic level. So, within a person, an energy-element never alters another energy-element. (That is, we do not have alteration of the spiritual DNA, which is the pathological lesion-claim; we have, however, healthy change as a change within the cluster of priorities emerging in life – see p. 12).

So here we are talking about appearance of schizophrenia in some age stage of life of a person. So, we talk about appearance of alteration of an element-part of the person, while before that, the said element-part was not corrupted, but it had the same personal (spiritual) DNA with the rest of the personal composition. How are we to consider this alteration?

Since data and information is the same thing, and the data (as being information) are related informatively between them (as we said a little before) then the lesion appearance means appearance of claim between personal energies (in “claim on the ego”) . We can not say anything other than that, for an element or part is for information only, and, indeed, it is information (code). And, as we said, for autonomy to be considered, the autonomization must be considered informatively. This is because it is about autonomization of information and the information can not do anything else but act informatively (communicate; inform and be informed). Otherwise it is not information. (It is mostly simple: The information exists informatively, because that is the nature of it). And if it is not information, then it is not personal energy-element –after: personal energy = information or code– therefore we are not talking about element-part, thus we are lead to a contradiction.

So, in order for an autonomized element to be apprehend, this element should inform its autonomization to the other elements. And the other elements will obviously inform their own place to that element, for as the one exists informatively for the others, the same goes for the others towards that one. We speak, therefore, for autonomy of information (as we said a while before) which information autonomy is necessarily addressed to the other elements-informations, and these are directed back to the autonomy of information (or autonomized

The Theory of the Person

[75]

information). If these constituencies are not made (i.e. informative energies) there cannot be elements, that is informations, as we said above.

The information is code. That the information informs (addresses to) the information means that the code encodes (i.e. sends code information, informs) in the code. The code which accepts this energy, is apparently acting codically. So, it produces information. This information is coded reaction in the energy (i.e. the code) that the code received from the other code. Therefore, there exists reaction.

This means interaction between the first code that sent the information and the second, which accepted it. This, after all, means also communication.

Communication is informational (or code) energy and condition. Moreover, if the first code was not interested in response (reaction), it would never even send the information. The first code communicated the information (or just communicated or simply informed) to the second code because it estimates it in terms of communication. Unless the estimated the communication, it simply would not make the move. And if it didn’t estimate communicationally (i.e. codically, as: code = communication, as we say above) then it would not be a code, so we would be lead to absurdity. And, obviously, as the first code estimates in terms of commnication the second, in the same manner the second code estimates the first one. And if the latter accepts encoding (code-energy), this means that it acts codically. And it acts codically in reference to code-making of the first code. This means that it refers to the first code. Simply put, the second code formulates an answer (or position or judgment, etc.) which answer is to the first code, since answering its codification.

So, apparently, it is communicating with the first code.

The two parties –the codes– are not like people in interpersonal level. There are not even individuals; they are codes. So let not be surprised by the whole concept and attitude made herein. We are looking at a completely different level: the intrapersonal. At the interpersonal level a person (i.e. individual) does not only consist in information. A human in relation to another one is not a code. They communicate, of course, but as individuals, who they are, they can be separated and have no need to communicate with each other. Or, simply, the one of them can act in a solid manifesting manner towards the other, i.e. without waiting for an answer.

This is obviously a different communication sphere, where communication is between individuals, i.e. independent entities, so communication is not given.

Besides, we people among us do not share the same personal DNA.

[76]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

So we have two-way actions-constituencies between parts of the same person. These, however, constituencies are, essentially, claims. This encompasses malignant constituencies since we talk about autonomy, i.e. altered personal DNA. We are talking, that is, for challenging the intellectual status of the parts in their relation, which previously have the same spiritual reality-creation, hence the desire or the position of disruption in organic-spiritual unity constitutes malignancy.

However, since the claim on the personal function (claim on the ego) does not exist, then for what alteration are we talking about? So, we come to that there cannot occur an alteration of personal DNA. The DNA, i.e. the nature, physiology and physiological functions of a personal energy, cannot be altered; these of a personal element or a portion of the person’s system.

Let's make here a final analysis of why a part or element of the person-brain cannot be understood as having corrupted spiritual DNA. The code has a format that is an encoding. But the code is form; it is codeformat, or else code substance or code-energy, i.e. codicality. (Here we deal with the code as code rather than the biological basis of the code, because the coding property –the energy, the characteristic of the person– is what interests us). So , code and encoding –or codicality– are the same thing .

The codicality A therefore (i.e. a part A of the mind) is, according to our hypothesis, altered. As we proved, the codicality A does not alter the codicality B (another part of the mind). The codicality A, as altered, sends altered energy, i.e. coding, i.e. codicality (the, be it, XA) (and we call it codicality after code = codicality = encoding) in codicality B. But codicality B does not change spiritual (codical) DNA. This can only be explained as follows: The B is not interested in XA and in A. If interested, then it sends its own codicality XB in A. Yet, since A and B are alien, that is blemished one relative to the other then the XB tries to alter the A. And we’ve proven that B is interested in A through XA (see bidirectional energies-constituencies in previous paragraph). So, XB is valid, which, according to the logic of our hypothesis, constitutes codicality of lesion of A. So, on the one hand the A tries to alter the B and the other B tries to alter the A. The lesions are construed as XA and XB. The XA and XB are construed as defects, because a coding (such as A and B) changes, apparently, only in code, so the change (deterioration) is of codical character, or else, the change (deterioration) is codical energy. And, the codical energy that alters is the XA and the XB. The lesions

The Theory of the Person

[77]

therefore are understood as XA and XB. But since neither A changes the B nor B changes the A (see: claim on the ego), then the XA and XB are canceled. The XA and XB are the lesions themselves, as we have explained. And, the lesions do not exist, since the alteration of A is not there and the alteration of B is not there. As we said above, the deterioration of A is the XA and the altered B is the XB. The alteration of A is the XA and the alteration of B is the XB. If anything, if A is tampered, it must notifyinform B about its position or value, so that autonomy is meant, and so to speak about schizophrenia (see: pp. 73-74). The same applies to the B towards the A. Therefore, since this communication-information is the XA and the XB, the A absolutely implies the XA and the B also fully involves the XB. So, since, as we have proven, the XA and XB do not exist, then there is no alteration of the A and no alteration of the B. So it cannot be altered A or B or C and so on, i.e. that is there cannot be altering of spiritual DNA in some part or element of the spiritual organism, which is the brain. There can only be quantitative alterations-changes, as we have proven.

So we proved that there cannot be apprehended appearance of schizophrenia in any stage of life and development of the individual. On the basis of the logic of this proof, which is absolute, it is obvious that there is no occurrence of schizophrenia also during intrauterine development. Because the as here logical evidence is absolute, it extends to the final depths: until very first stage of embryo development. Namely the first development energy, which is the appearance of the zygote from the fertilized egg. The theme of schizophrenia has to do with the concept of communication, so the issue of codes, which we analyzed. How can the two cells of the zygote be understood as having different – non-compatible spiritual DNA? When did these two spiritual codes differentiate? According to our proof: never. But could it be that from the beginning of their appearance the two cells different (schizophrenic)? For this to be, there should be functioned lesions in the development process of the one and / or the other cell to in order to obtain the effect of the altered cell. What relationship, however, does this have with the proof field of the codes, which we have reported, in which field the theme of schizophrenia, as well as the general qualitative deterioration theme of the person, exclusively fits? Therefore, in order to support our objection, we must necessarily assume the existence of codes in the process of development / appearance of the two cells of the zygote. But, this so be it theoretical / hypothetical existence of

[78]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

codes removes itself the possibility of different spiritual / codical DNA. If anything, in our proof we dealt with the issue of codes-informations and not the theme and concept of cells.

But, on the other hand, it is appropriate to consider the existence of codes during the development and appearance of cells (and not only the existence of codes between the cells) as the cellular energy and personality (i.e. within the cell) is a life process. The life process has some thoroughness, so some thought. Animal cognition is animal code, so animal ratio/ word (see below for general codal word).

The animal reason/ word as an existence we can unlimitedly expand it in depth, and not merely in the depth and the level of the cell. What is sufficient in this reasoning is the each level we refer to, be a level where life and personal (human) entity is localized. After all, where we do not have life and person, there we do not have interest in terms of the present theory and of medicine. So, the unlimited application of the codes and of the general codal word, for which we write a little below –in this theory, which deals with the word and its connection to the materialobjective existence of the person-brain (see p. 33-35)– guarantees the universal and absolute application of the proof about the illusion of the claim on the ego and the confusion of the person / persons, and also about the non-existence of qualitative deterioration and schizophrenia. And, of course, the unlimited levels of codes and of codal word are considered in terms of the brain, in which the personal functions, the personal data are located. The brain cannot considered without the brain cells, which cells in turn cannot be considered as not composed of their partial elements, and so on.

Right below we write about the reality of organic lesion, which, however, as you will see, does not constitute a distortion of the spiritual / personal DNA. We said right above, that the alteration of A is the XA and the alteration of B is the XB, so there is no alteration of A and B. But, as we wrote, the XA is the address by the A to B and XB is the address by the B to A. Therefore, the accurate is to say that A and B are not altered as relating towards B and A respectively. Each of them autonomised and internally may be altered, as it is known that mutations can occur in DNA, hence biological changes. But according to the analysis that we have done , the A in relation to B, is altered quantitatively, i.e. the addressing, which is bidirectional, creates quantitative differences in the relationship between them, and only quantitative. So the only thing left to say is that when a spiritual energy is

The Theory of the Person

[79]

changed, if the consistency of the person is not affected and not slander, this is evolution process only. We have, namely, the introduction of new data, so the logic of the process within the cluster of priorities, for which we spoke (p. 18). With the only difference that in this case the change is biological rather than psychological.

But, nevertheless, the parallelism of the psychological field to the biological comes very naturally and does not surprise us, since it is known that the biological-medical part from one side and the psychological part of the other are two sides of the same coin. Besides, we have shown that even the degeneration is meant as quantitative alteration (pp. 39-43).

So it is a fact the intrapersonal relationships (i.e. the relationship of the type A to B) are altered only quantitatively and never qualitatively. This, as we wrote, excludes malignancy within the person that is in its relationship with itself. And when there is no malignancy, on one hand autonomization cannot be meant (because there cannot apply what applies to interpersonal relations, as we have explained), and on the other hand this implies that there exists benign. And no matter how much internal conflicts and rivalries are held (see pp. 53-54) the internal relationship does not cease to be inspired by benign, that is love. Even if we are thinking negatively or feel hatred, rejection, fear, guilt, etc. for ourselves, these are essentially internal conflicts and rivalries, causing only quantitative changes in our spirit. If an erotic couple is genuinely loved and the quarrels among them may be intense, they do not remove the love for each other for even a moment (that’s why they are not meant as separated from each other for even second), but because of their conflicts they are tied more and they even renew their relationship, in the intrapersonal level, as to the binding, it is by definition and proof impossible to remove a part from another, because we are talking about the individual, i.e. the non-divided. This Benign is over organic base and not in a beyond-the-individual one. And, Benign is the alpha and the omega for the treatment, i.e. the correction of quantitative changes-lesions (as Benign means love, compassion, cooperation, etc.), as long as Benign be strengthened (with –obviously– the quantitative sense of empowerment, i.e. one part not suppressing the other) that is therapeutic aid be applied to the patient. This enhancement in psychotherapy level is predominantly given by the Person-centered and the Synthetic Psychotherapy, as these are addressed to the person in the fundamentally genuine way, according to what we have proved in the chapters where founded both psychotherapeutic movements.

[80]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

The Benign, therefore, in the intrapersonal relationship is given, and absolutely nothing threatens it. When in p. 16 we write that by the knowledge of this theory we can rediscover the consciousness, that our person, which never lost, but it is just that we did not trust it or did not love it enough, in essence we do not mean that we ever lack love and trust, i.e. that we have any degree of malignancy, within our person. As we have shown, there is no malignancy in the intrapersonal relationship, but only conflicts and rivalries, which do not cause degradation – qualitative lesion– but only suppression, i.e. quantitative change. The suppression of the person, as we wrote, is caused by the claim on the person (intrapersonal or interpersonal claim or also claim by impersonal factors / elements), which, however, claim does not exist, but there is a false sense / perception of claim, and for this reason, all that exists and occurs is the quantitative alteration. The very false perception / sense about the claim is quantitative alteration. Since the qualitative alteration, hence the lack benign, does not exist, then there is not meant a lack or absence of love and trust from the person to itself. As we said, there is only repression, i.e. quantitative change, and therefore when the human thinks, feels and wants in a manner of rejection or negativity to him/herself, he/she is merely deceived because the referred rejection or denial is delusion and psychosis, i.e., as we said, claim on the person, which is non-existent. There is not in any degree our not loving and distrusting our person. There is only the quantitative change / repression of us. And, this is what is proved by this theory. Of course, that the fact that the non-love and non-confidence within the own person is non-existent, this does not introduce and does not mean fatalism. That is, the fact that this is the absolute truth and reality does not mean that there is no reason to try to love and trust our person. On the contrary: with our positive efforts we affirm this truth and reality by agreeing to it, and certainly there is reason for positive attitude, sense, desire, etc., of our own person because by that way, attitude and mentality we restore our quantities. We restore and heal our compromised functions / data since thereby we avoid and treat the claims on our person, which may surely not exist, but in their place are the repressions. And, certainly, as we write at pp. 48-49, the knowledge that our face is integral and impossible to be confused, thus that the intrapersonal relationship is certainly and in anyway inextricably loving, this knowledge is in itself the therapy (from the repressions) .

The Theory of the Person

[81]

Here let’s note again that the biological change is understood as evolution. (see pp. 17-18) –positive or negative, it has no significance– and that, even in the extreme case of degeneracy, the lesion is quantitative. It is quantitative alteration in the relationship between the as aforementioned interactive relationships of type A to B, so it is also quantitative alteration of A in relation to itself and of B in relation to itself (i.e. in relation to how it was before). This we have shown above, on pages 73 to 78. So, another thing is the evolution –positive or negative– and another is the alteration of the spiritual DNA, that is either of the person in total (i.e. personal synthesis) or of a partial personal energy-region. And, the biological evolution (change –positive or negative) related with the psychological evolution (change – positive or negative) are the two sides of a coin called spirit or person. The spiritual DNA –the personal identity in its wholeness or in parts thereof– we demonstrated that it is impossible to be altered.

According to what we have written on codes and informations, it is almost needless to say that in the issue of partial or complete isolation of a portion of the brain through a, for example, metal cube (pp. 71-72), even if we keep that part alive artificially, this section cannot be regarded as unaccountable and as having arbitrary mental energy towards the rest of the brain. That’s because, as we write and prove, the autonomization is position of autonomization; it consists of bidirectional-mutual information of autonomization, which autonomization is impossible. Therefore, even if after that somehow the said cube disappears, if the biological DNA of the previously excluded brain portion has changed, yet its spiritual DNA remains unchanged. Just above we demonstrated that the changing of the genetic code does not imply the change of the personal identity (personal DNA, spiritual DNA). Whatever (apparently mutual) position-information may be functioned after the reintegration of that part, this does not constitute autonomization, according to what we have shown.

In dealing with the person from the purely medical point of view we talked about codes - codicalities - encodings. We also talked about mutual constituencies, positions of autonomy, etc. All of these have social - communicative nature. The word/reason as pronunciation of words, i.e. the spoken and written word, is obviously code, it functions / entails encodings and it is understood and exists as codicality. The verbal word, then, involves and functions constituencies, positions, values, etc. In this chapter we examined our spirit / person in its medical

[82]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

dimension, as this is expressed as codes - codicalities - encodings. Since the code energy is spiritual - personal energy, then it definitely has social - communicative nature. It is sociability - communicativeness at both interpersonal and intrapersonal level. (Note: Of course, both the interpersonal and intrapersonal communication are functioned intrapersonally under this theory. In fact we proved that the person is incontestable and there is no confusion between persons, so the own person, as of complete integrity and non-confused, is obviously constitutes absolute reference value: there is no need for reference to other persons in order to support the value of the entity of the own person). So the codes - codicalities - encodings have social communicative character and personality and they are apprehended and exist as personal / spiritual energies. Apart from these, the concept of the code is inextricably linked with the concept of information. So if the code, which contains information (i), has also social - personal nature (ii), then the code is Word. The (i) and (ii) define the entity of the Word: the (i) ensures constructive way of the word and the (ii) ensures the functionality of the word – the addressing, the sociability.

So, all functions from the psychiatric aspect are understood as word/ reason.

So, the verbal word/ reason (the commonly known spoken and written word) as a code energy that is, it is included in the general codical word, which we refer to.

On pages 39-41 we refer to the wordy formulation I am, which summarizes our theory and constitutes the reduction in any spiritual healing, because it summarizes the being of the person. As we understand, since the verbal word is included in the general codical word, the wording for the being of the person (which person has codical being) –I am– is functioned generally-totally codically, and not just verbally/wordily.

In Chapters A and B, we wrote on the claim on the ego and on the confusion of persons, proving that these are unfeasible and nonexistent thus proving the integrity of the person, and indeed, we connected the otherness (non-confusion) of the persons from the linguistic-verbal aspect with the otherness (non-confusion) of the persons from the objective - pragmatic aspect (see especially pp. 33-35). And since, as we said, the verbal word is included in the general codical word in the way it is studied by psychiatry, then through this chapter it is also revealed the connection between the linguistic study on the integrity of the person and the pragmatic aspect of the person, or, more specifically, the psychiatric aspect of the person. In other words, we applied the linguistic findings in the psychiatric level, so

The Theory of the Person

[83]

revealing the medical - pragmatic aspect of the finding. We synthesized the theory (that is the word, within which we proved that there cannot be considered personal / interpersonal confusion, but only the otherness) with the material (i.e. the brain, which is the material that has the property of reasoning). (And indeed, on pp. 68-69 we write that the brain - person is homologous with a stone, some chemical matter, etc. The stone is addressed claimfully towards the brain - person, and the stone is certainly not a material which functions reason. So, here we do not even need to try to connect the psychological - theoretical field with the objective - existent. So, the objective - real stone acts claimfully towards the person - brain. We have the link of the stone with the brain - person, thus we have the connection of the real objective –and indeed totally objective– with the psychological - subjective field, where the stone is addressed claimfully. And it should be noted that, as we write in p. 78-79, the codes - codicalities - encodings, thus the codal word, are located unlimitedly deep in the infrastructure and substance of the brain. So, we are talking about the whole entity called brain.) It’s the same brain which considers the otherness and which exists objectively as other that the other brains. That is, the perception of otherness and the other existence, equally belong in the brain (see pp.

33-35). If the perception of otherness is correct, then also the other being (otherness) is correct and valid, for the simple reason that perception and theory belong to the material existence of the brain. What is more, the personal perception and theory are the whole of the entity / existence of the brain because, as we have written in this chapter, the person is the brain. Anything inside the brain constitutes personal energy. The brain / person is the total / composition of operations expressed as “I...”, and which are summarized (ontologically) in the wording “I am”, as written just above. The person, then, is the brain, and therefore the brain exists such as the person exists. Recall that we have proved in full extent that the brain cannot exist schizophrenically. So we have the issue of existence. The existential or otherwise ontological field, encloses within it the topic of otherness both objectively and subjectively, i.e. the psychological otherness. The ontological scope, i.e. the reference, in the ontology is the last reference that, as the last and absolute, it includes all the (ontological) dimensions. And, in that the connection of the subjective / psychological otherness with the objective / real otherness refers to the ultimate field –the ontological– constitutes the ultimate guarantee of the desired, i.e. this referred connection.

[84]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

In this theory we proved that the only pathologies and lesions of the person (or mind or brain) are the quantitative ones. The person changes only quantitatively. We covered literally all the factors and causes of pathology. And, all the pathogens it came out that are defined as agents of the claim on the ego. We always have claim on the person (of the own or of the other person), even if the cause of it is a stone, a chemical (see p. 69), developmental - biological factors (see p.

73-74), etc. As known by this theory, the claim on the ego (person) is the same thing with the confusion of persons and intrapersonal confusion (where noted, in the intrapersonal confusion falls also the case of my confusing one other person with another other person, once: a) I have no clear perception / sense of the other person and b) I do not have a clear perception / sense of my own person in which is operated, if anything, the perception / sense about the other persons – see pp. 6869). Therefore, literally any disease is being reduced to the confusion of the person / persons, which, of course, confusion is inexistent and is merely illusion / psychosis.

So, against any pathology, we should be looking for and cure the deficiency and ambiguity that we have in the perception / sense about the person or the persons.

And, the treatment, which we write and prove, is summarized (as we have already written, pp. 48-49) in the demonstrated by this theory knowledge that the person is incontestable, unchanged in identity, unconfused. And, as unconfused that it is, the otherness of persons is absolute reality and absolute truth.

In referring to the claim on the person we write on pp. 68-69 that the brainperson is homologous with a stone, some chemical substance, etc. Referring to the same issue, the qualitative alteration of the person, we write (pp. 73-74) on the issue of developmental - biological causes. From these it is concluded that the person is incontestable and unchanged when also related with inanimate (non-personal) things, and, by the same logic, the person is absolute otherness against notions, dimensions , masses and energies, and so on, i.e. against anything not being a component (own element) of the person.

The Theory of the Person

[85]

F. The relationship of Spirit – Body We proved that the spiritual DNA does not change. We proved, that is, that our spiritual identity is invulnerable. The quantitative changes, which are the only feasible, do not affect our identity, since the identity is the quality. Part of our proof of this is that, even though our biological DNA (the genetic code as commonly known) is changed, the spiritual DNA does not change one iota. According, always, with that proof of ours, having talked about codes, codings and codicalities, which these concepts and realities are nothing but the brain (and perhaps not only the brain) cells in the relations between them, there comes in result in a simple and obvious way that the organicity and the spirituality are inextricably related. The organicity is the biological status of the individual (which concerns also the biological DNA) and the spirituality is our spirit – our person. On one hand the organicity and the spirituality are closely related, yet that does not mean that they are identified with each other, because they have a difference that can not be ignored: the organicity is altered qualitatively while spirituality is not. This truth about the non-identity we will denote as M. The organicity is altered qualitatively and quantitatively. Both, however, the qualitative and quantitative organic lesion do not affect the spirituality (spiritual identity). So, let’s just talk about organicity. So there are two things: the organicity and the spirituality. These two are inextricably linked, as said before. And, always at the individual level, the organicity is associated only with spirituality –i.e. it is addressed to it– and the spirituality is addressed only to organicity. The relationship, therefore, of those two is inseparable from one hand –and the element of inextricability in relation to the non-identity is M(i)– and on the other hand this relationship is exclusive, i.e. M(ii). The spirituality we mentioned only as a quality identity. Our spirit, however, apart from having qualities, it also has quantities. Let’s call the spiritual (or personal) identity - quality Pt and the spiritual quantity Pp. The Pt and the Pp are synopsized in P, which is the spirit or person. The organicity– organism we call O. Because we examine the spirit-mind and the body in relation to each other, we can say that both the quantity of O and its quality have exactly the same relationship with the Pt. P is synthesized from the Pt and the Pp. The relationship of O with Pt on the basis of M is the terms of O neutral, since the O does not affect the Pt. Neutrality we call n (from the English neutral). So we have on the basis of M→OnPt. That is, the O addressed to the Pt it does not a ect it. Let us ask ourselves about the relations O – Pp and Pt – Pp. Let us note here that is of no interest to distinguish the O in the Ot and Op, because our effort is to associate the person (P) with the organism (O) that is to say

[86]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

how the person affects the body and not how the body affects the person. Besides, the question of the effect of the person has been solved in this Theory of the Person fully and in all respects, without gaps in solution and proof. And, based on this proof, the any agents have common and similar operation in the person: the quantitative, and only, alteration of it (and indeed at the level of subjectivity, i.e. the energy of the subject-spirit itself be associated with any agents). So, all these influences have common nature and the effect of all influences is the same.

Therefore, with reference to our quest, the distinction of O in Ot and Op cannot be.

Also, it is not to explore the relationship Pt – Pp: We have clarified the relationship, since the Pt, on one hand it is not altered, so obviously it not affected by the Pp (hence is valid PpnPt) and secondly we have described in the proving way the address of the Pt in the Pp. That is, in essence, how, based on the Pt, we are addressing in the Pp and heal it.

So, apart from the O – Pt, the only interesting relation is the O – Pp. And it should be noted that we are dealing with the addressing of the O in Pt and the addressing of O in Pp, and not vice versa, i.e. the addressing of thePt and of the Pp in the O. This for the addressing from P to O is our subject of research therefore we want to come from any data to the requested and obviously not by the requested to the other data.

Thus, the data to be processed are only two: The addressing O in Pt, which we indeed have closed, and addressing O in Pp. The addressing O in Pp may be neutral or non-neutral, i.e. be valid as an addressing.

But of all possible combinations - addressings, we left one behind: the addressing Pt in Pp. So this raises as pending our issue on the addressing of O in the Pp. The other two addressings have been judged and, as explained, is out of interest the Pt – O and Pp – O for there is not an issue of reverse addressing. (From pure numerical terms, since the parties are three –O, Pt and Pp– all combinations are six, and we just excluded the four of them, so there are pending the two which we present for investigation). So, let’s look at how can be related to the addressing Pt in Pp with the addressing O in Pp. The first addressing is in effect the whole of the Theory of the Person. That is, the teaching and proof of that the person does not change qualitatively, and also of the ways we are cured, based on the knowledge of the nature of or person. This teaching and proof literally covers the entire spectrum of psychology and reaches to the ultimate depths (see pp. 78-79). Since then the addressing Pt in Pp (i.e. the effect of Pp by the Pt) is absolute, this does not leave any space for O influencing the Pp, that is for the addressing of O in Pp. Here we comment on the following: The Pt is absolute in nature. The Theory of the Person simply reveals the in anyway absoluteness of Pt and does not guarantee it; it does not create it. Obviously. What the theory makes is that it

The Theory of the Person

[87]

teaches how to make the absoluteness of Pt as the absoluteness of Pp (absolute quantitative recovery). The Pt, as absolute that it is, it apparently has absolute power/function. But this does not mean that the recipient of absolute power (Pp) will perceive 100% of this energy. And so, the issue of to what extent this absolute energy will address 100% to the receiver, that is the theme of the Theory of the Person. This is made evident from the study of the whole theory. So then, the addressing Pt – Pp on one hand it is characterized by absoluteness, yet it is not necessarily assured and accomplished. That is it’s not necessarily 100% acceptable although it is an absolute is addressing. In other words, the Pt acts absolutely, but it also depends on the receiver (Pp) to accept this absolute power. If the recipient does not accept the absolute power 100%, it then accepts it in part. So it accepts the absolute power in part. And, insofar as the spiritual quantity (Pp) does not accept the Pt, it suffers. This we prove in our theory. And how does it suffer? By being or existing less. That is, the intellectual/spiritual quantity decreases. It is quantity and so it quantitatively changes, i.e. it gets reduced, so it exists less. Thus, since the Pp exists depending on how it is receiving the addressing by the Pt, then to the extent the Pt is addressed to Pp, to this extent there exists the Pp. Therefore, the addressing of Pt – Pp is exclusive and absolute, since the existence of the Pp is only meant within the addressing it receives from the Pt. Our theory proves that the only reason for the suppression of the ego (quantitative change, i.e. deterioration of Pp) is the lack in the addressing Pt – Pp, which addressing covers the entire range of repressions, since as also writing above: “the question of the effect of the person has been solved in this Theory of the Person fully and in all respects, without gaps in solution and proof. And, based on this proof, the any agents have common and similar operation in the person: the quantitative, and only, alteration of it (and indeed at the level of subjectivity, i.e. the energy of the subject-spirit itself be associated with any agents).”

So, we have a given which is absolute: the absolute and exclusive addressing of Pt in Pp. According to all the analysis so far we can go to the requested: the addressing (influence) of Pt in the O and the addressing (influence) of the Pp in the O. And we have the following: a) there is M and b) the Pt – Pp is absolute on the basis of this theory. So, based on (a) and (b), the Pp, which is the only quest in psychological terms, it is (for this reason) the only criterion in terms of affecting the organism (O). And, this unique criterion depends on (is affected) exclusively and potentially completely from the (of absolutely integrity) Pt in the degree of understanding and application of the Theory of Person. For the (i) and (ii) of M we are not sure. That is we have not clarified whether the Pp affects inextricably and exclusively the O. But the Pp is the only criterion of affecting the O in the

[88]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

psychological-subjective level. This is true by definition since P, i.e. the subject, is the subjective level.

Let us note that the Pp is certainly associated with the O, and indeed as the only factor of direct influence on it. If the O was affected directly by both the Pp and the Pt together, we would have a contradiction and incoherence: the Pt is completely unchanged and the Pp is changeable. And the relationship Pt – Pp is absolute, where the absoluteness is exclusively due to the Pt (with the criterion of this theory). So, we can say that the Pp since it “obeys” perfectly in Pt, it doesn’t have its own word on O, i.e. it cannot not afford to compete with the Pt in order to get a “share” of influence in O (within the frame of the common sharing of O by the Pp and Pt). Furthermore, given that the Pp “falls” perfectly in Pt, how could these two P “stand” adjacent to one another and compete or even share the O, i.e. them both having direct addressing in O? So we reject this case and keep the former, i.e. the direct influence of O only by the Pp. And it could be a direct effect on the O by only the Pt because in the Pt – O the Pp would fit either in the beginning or in the end of the addressing form. That is, the Pp would fit as directly associated with either only Pt or only with the O. (We do not mention the form Pt – Pp – O, which we deal with below.) This is because on the basis of our case (Pt – O) the Pp is not directly addressed in the O and also, above, we ruled out that the O is addressed in the Pp. So there cannot be stated Pp – O and O – Pp. So in the hypothetical form Pt – O the Pp is placed in the beginning: Pp – Pt – O. But according to above applies PpnPt. So, our assumption cannot stand. The only way to save the case is to say that the Pt on one hand it’s addressed directly in the O and on the other hand it is related to the Pp in a way that the O and the Pp are to have no relationship between them. That is Pp ← Pt → O. But this is absurd because, thinking simply, our organism (something which will take place in our bodies) can bring spiritual change. Or, also, vice versa: a spiritual change has influence in the body. And, the spiritual change is only quantitative, so the O will be associated with the Pp. Here we may say that, since we excluded above the distinction of O in the Ot and Op as to the addressing (influence) of O to P (Pt and Pp), it is understandable that the reverse is also true: we banned also the discrimination of O in Ot and Op within the addressing (influence) of P to O. That is because we closed the influence of P to O on the basis of the study (of the possible) influence of O to P –that is we began to reversely. This means that, since the study of the addressing of O to P, which leads to the addressing P to O, does not allow the discrimination of the O, then the discrimination of O is also not allowed in the reverse addressing. Simply, i.e., the P to O obeys the rules of O to P because it is built as evidence therein.

Here let us mention the case of the Pp be identidied with O, or, better, the P (Pt and Pp) identified with the O given that the O has not only quantities but also

The Theory of the Person

[89]

qualities. This case we will look at for the present. Our aim is the link / addressing P – O. For reasons of economy we accept that the parties are three, and this does not bother us because the theme of the three or two parts is elucidated towards the end of the chapter without the analysis which precedes it being cancelled. Rather we need to move forward with the three parties to clarify the issue of identification or non-identification of P and O. If we say P = O, this on one hand we do not know yet.

Secondly, here we deal with elucidating the relationship P with O. Therefore, we proceed with the three parties (Pt, Pp, O), and the relationship P with O is finally elucidated.

Here let’s make a comment. Let’s say that we have broken a rib, and this causes complications in the lung. Both the fractured rib and the lung, and also the pathological correlation between them are organic magnitudes (organic portions and organic functions) and they are influenced exclusively by the Pp in the manner we have shown. We have fever or dizziness and decide to visit the doctor. Our feet that will walk to the clinic, our hands that will open the doctor’s door, our mouth with which we reach out to our doctor, our ears with which we are to hear, are part of O, which accepts addressing (at the subjective level) exclusively by the Pp, which Pp accepts the addressing only by the absolute and invulnerable Pt to the extent of understanding and application of the Theory of the Person.

The nature of the Pt is proven to be absolute. To the extent that we apply the Theory of the Person, this absolutizes also the strength, the accuracy, the achievement of the Pp. This we have proved in this theory. We have established and ensured the treatment of Pp from literally all factors: from other persons, by the own person, from non-personal elements and factors. So we have covered also factor O as pathogenic for the Pp. Above, we write that the O is not directed (affects) in the Pp because the Pp accepts absolute influence by the Pt. But also as we wrote, the addressing Pt – Pp – O ensures the O via the Pp to the extent that is understood and applied the Theory of the Person. And this theory teaches the relationshipaddressing Pt to Pp. Therefore, the accurate is to say that the factor O as pathogenic for the Pp does not apply to the extent that in our spirit there is the Theory of the Person. The addressing of the O to the Pp in the non-pathological level does not interest us at all. That’s because as pathology we generally and fundamentally regard the failure, failure for realization, any failure on the basis of our spiritual identity (Pt). So, we end up not having any reference point for the addressing of the O to the Pp, given that in our spirit we have the Theory of the Person.

We wrote above for the hypothetical case of O not associated in any way with the Pp by delivering on that the formulation Pp ← Pt → O. So let’s clarify that the irrelevance of the O with the Pp in that scheme does not apply to the nonaddressing of O to Pp to which we refer here. It is something different. That’s

[90]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

because the non-addressing of O to Pp is found by taking for granted the assumption of the addressing (influence) of O to Pp. So we have taken for granted the relationship O with Pp and also, given this fact, we conclude to that the Pp is addressed to the O. So there is relationship of the Pp with the O. Since then, the O is not addressed to the Pp on the basis of this theory, so therefore the only addressing is from the Pp to the O. The Pp is absolutized, that is it gets up to Pt –it becomes invulnerable, insurmountable– on the basis of this theory.

So, by the present theory (and depending on the degree of this presence), the Theory of the Person, in the spirit of the human, the Pp has absolute addressing to the O. And, in the same way the Pp becomes invulnerable and incontestable by the addressing it receives from the invulnerable-insurmountable Pt, so the O becomes invulnerable and insurmountable, that is by with the addressing it receives from the invulnerable-insurmountable Pp. That’s because both addressings have absolute addressing factor. Understandably, the absolute factor does not leave space to other factors for influence on the object that it absolutely affects. Otherwise it would not be absolute in its addressing. In the same way it is understandable that the power of the absolute factor is unbreakable, so its absolute addressing an unbreakable addressing. And, by the same logic, the absolute addressing is exclusive addressing.

Therefore, the, under the criterion of this theory, absolute addressings Pt – Pp and Pp – O secure also the M(i) and M(ii). The securing of (i) and (ii) of M in combination with the securing of the individuality imply the universal addressing (presence) of P (Pt and Pp, with the addressing Pt – Pp – O) to the O: If P has exclusive relationship (i.e. addressing) with the O, nothing else is related-addressed to the O. And the unbreakable-ness means that the in any way exclusive relationship has no breaks and gaps. On the other hand, the individuality means that, if P is related to any particular part of the O, then it also has relationship and all the other parts. (And apparently P is related even with a slightest part of O, otherwise we would not even make word about addressing of P to O). That is, the non-divisibility of the O includes all parts of the O without discrimination (separation-parting). Since, then, there is no distinction, then all parts of the O are definitely included in the O, thus apprehended as O, so have the quality O, the substance O. And, the addressing that we prove is the Pt – Pp – O. Since then, in this addressing is included the quality, the substance, O, we understand that what we wrote just above about the individuality, is true. This in other words means that, as we have also written in the beginning of our theory, the ego is addressed to the whole self. And, the mere consideration of the whole self, does it not constitute the addressing throughout our organism? “I consider my organism”. The point is simple and self-evident.

Also, that with our conscious (our knowledge, etc.), and generally with our spiritual activity, we locate potentially even the tiniest part of our organism, this is

The Theory of the Person

[91]

proof that the P is addressed to all the O. And this is because we have granted the unbreakable-ness and exclusivity of the relationship P – O. If, that is, it is possible that the P be associated with any part of O, from that comes that it is associated with this part from before and after: it cannot be that at a particular time the P is correlated to O while at another time it is not correlated, since the relationship is not ruptured. Besides, the potentiality, which we refer to, is the possibility. And certainly there is even a small chance that I understand (and thus generally to refer spiritually) any part of my own O. It may not be possible for me to realize the O of some other person-individual, but the unbreakable-ness and exclusivity in terms of the self are granted and they grant in turn the certain probability for spiritual approach to the own O, namely the O of the self. This means there is a potential addressing-approach, which as (possible) addressing has unbreakable-ness and exclusivity. That is the part “addressing” has unbreakable-ness and exclusivity.

Thus, the indissoluble and exclusive possible approach is expressed also as inextricably and exclusively possible approach that is approach of which the probability is unbreakable and exclusive. Therefore; certain probability. Besides, as we said, the possibility is the potentiality. And the approach is a potential situation.

So unbreakable-ness and exclusivity approach means unbreakable-ness and exclusivity in probability. In other words, myself (my organism) is always present to me, so the probability of approach is always present, since the approach is to the self. So if I have 30% chance to apprehend a part of my O, this 30% is certain probability, as we said. Therefore, the 30% exists in advance. Its presence is guaranteed. It is guaranteed a priori, so now, in the present. This is interpreted as that I now have 30% chance for perceiving that part of the O. So, the probability is operated now. The now, however, could only be understood as the already energized effort. And the already energized effort has 30% success. Therefore, it is a successful attempt by 30%. That is, it’s an approximation of the portion of the O by 30%. So this party has been approached by 30%. Recall that this approach is already present. So we granted the even partial addressing of P to the O. However, considering the Pp absolute and as it having absolute addressing to the O (because this is our topic), the addressing is not apprehended as partially successful. The granted, thus, addressing is entirely successful, so the P has universal addressing (presence) in the O. The Pt is incontestable, absolute and invulnerable as by its nature. The Pp is always and in each case associated with the Pt with a relationship of quantity with quality. And, as is known and fundamentally true, a quality has always a quantity.

No matter what the quantity (Pp), it always relates to the unchanging quality (Pt).

The P, i.e. Pt and Pp, is only addressed to the O and it does not accept addressing by the O. Therefore, it is not dependent on it. Therefore, any loss, failure or even the termination of the O (biological death) they do not affect the P, that is our Spirit.

[92]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

Recall the inherently invulnerability of the Pt and that the Pt and Pp are always apprehended, and always exist, together.

Note: The invulnerability of the Pt is the invariant nature of Pt. The Pt is the quality. The slightest change in Pt would mean that the Pt would cease to be so or such. The such is the kind, thus the quality and thus the Pt itself. Thus, the death of Pt is any slightest change therein. So, either we talk about any slightest illness or we talk about death, the issue is exactly the same for the Pt. Since, then, in any disease of the human alive we have not even the slightest effect on Pt, then we have no influence in the Pt in death either. Death is understood as the abolition of the human. The disease is as simply the fall of the human. In the first case we have universal decline and in the second a partial one. But the Pt knows no partial nor total fall. If it fell, the drop would anyway be total. So both the partial and total fall of the O mean the same thing for the Pt. Say, then, that we know and apply the Theory of the Person. Into thinking that we might not succeed in knowing and applying it well enough over time we feel anxiety and insecurity. That is because we may not be able to secure the invulnerability of the O. The O being shattered, or even the O suffering significant loss, it is a shame because the P, that will not be terminated, is addressed (by the function/effort in terms of our theory) with an exclusive, indissoluble and catholic addressing to the O. However this existential anxiety is obviously spiritual; it is located in P. And the P is invulnerable in the Pt and perishable but not becoming extinct in the Pp. So, let’s not get frustrated.

We proved in earlier paragraph the inextricability and exclusivity of the addressing of the P in the O with the criterion of the Theory of the Person. Let’s say that a human has lost his/her kidney. And that it is his/her nature of spirit the addressing to the kidney. So, this spiritual-personal addressing may well be expressed as “I want my kidney”. This phrase is obviously personal energy (in the sense that we are dealing with the personal functions in our theory in general) addressed to the body. (And, it should be noted that this personal energy is not functioned only verbally, but also in any other way and level of codical word –see pp. 81-83). This spiritual energy-addressing we name Pk and the element of the organism, i.e. the kidney, we name Ok. So there exists the Pk but there is no Ok existing. But the Pk, as addressing that it is, it’s disputed by the non-existence of Ok because the Ok, which is accepting the addressing, does not exist. (In this case there can not be conceived addressing to something non-existent, i.e. an addressing with no “receiver” because that would mean that the addressing of P, the Pk, has failed. It has not been realized, that is satisfied, but it is under suppression. Yet the Pk is personal function, and to the extent that the Theory of the Person is used, the realization and achievement is given. In other words, the suppression, the

The Theory of the Person

[93]

quantitative change, is excluded). So, we only are to say that there is no existent Pk. This is because if there is the Pk this will necessarily mean that also the Ok exists.

That is for the Pk to exist there is the needed for the existence of Ok. However, a little above we proved that P is invulnerable (and in specific, the Pp is invulnerable to the extent of the application of the theory) and is not affected by any loss of the O (such as the loss of the kidney). And also it is certain (by definition) that the Pk is a function of P as being an addressing to O. So the Pk, as invulnerable and nonaffected by the O, and in specific by the Ok, it certainly exists. So inevitably there also exists the Ok. And this always at the extent to which is understood and applied the Theory of the Person, as we have said, so that it is ensured potentially the absolute addressing Pt – Pp – O. So we prove the universal/catholic presenceaddressing of P to O, ensuring the integrity of the O in each case, always according to the criterion of this theory. Therefore, it is here guaranteed also the recovery of individuality-integrity.

We have written in this theory that the organic alterations, even the extreme ones, like degeneration and genetic mutation, are meant as quantitative changes in our spirit. Based on what we prove here, it occurs naturally that to the extent the Theory of the Person is not applied and is not experienced spiritually, thus there exist quantitative changes (or suppression of achievement, as we write in chap. C, p. 51), so the Pp is not in its natural state (state of achievement/ good aim) as quantity that it is, it is not addressed in a well-targeted manner in the O. In applying the Theory we have as guaranteed the (potentially) absolute and invulnerable addressing of Pp to O because –as we’ve written– by the power of our Theory the Pp becomes perfectly achieved and invulnerable. So, also the O is saved.

It is therefore reasonable that to the extent in which the Theory the Person is absent, the addressing Pp – O doesn’t have absoluteness of achievement and invulnerability. And so the quantitative alterations in the human’s spirit are linked with the any defects, or also absences, in his/her body.

Our Theory teaches and proves the ultimate (and the only) treatment of mind and body. This does not mean that anyone who does not know this theory is completely abnormal. The addressing Pt – Pp is functioned on the basis of proof that the spiritual identity (Pt) is completely unchanged-invulnerable and therefore the confusion / claim of persons, and of the own person, totally impossible. We have absolutely proven that our spiritual identity is completely intact and invulnerable, and we know from our theory that this very proven knowledge heals the quantitative changes, i.e. any pathology. Anyone who, although is not aware of the proof about the Pt and about the non confusion / claim, yet he / she believes in his / her spiritual identity and in the principle of non-confusion / claim and tries to apply it although he / she does not know for sure that there exists this principle,

[94]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

and indeed as absolute, he / she functions according to his / her possibility and sufficiently Pt – Pp. This theory, however, absolutely ensures the Pt – Pp and, therefore, entirely the Pp – O. With the guarantee of individuality-inextricability-exclusivity (see. above) we have (given the, for example, 30%, to which we referred) 100% presence (universality of presence) of P in O. For each specific part of O we have addressing according to the data of the Pt (see above: “I want my kidney”). Without the Theory of the Person it is not guaranteed the individuality-inextricability-exclusivity, as we have written. The individuality-inextricability-exclusivity of addressing is summarized in the universality /catholicity of the addressing (since this trinity produces the universality /catholicity, as we have proven), that is what we express and state as 100%. The universality of the addressing obviously applies so much to the whole of the O as much to any part of the O (such as the kidney). The failure to ensure, therefore, individuality-inextricability-exclusivity means that the universality, i.e. the 100% is not guaranteed. The universality is ensured on in the terms of the addressing Pt – Pp – O, which is apprehended on the basis of the Theory of the Person. As we have written, without the Theory of the Person there can be an adequacy of addressing (but not completeness-perfection), but, of course, there can also be no sufficiency. In anyway, because the Pp –which, as we have written, is never extinct– is addressed to O, it has some addressing (more or less) to the O. And the same applies to the addressing Pt – Pp, in the case that we are not based on the Theory. However, the Pt is completely unchanged regardless the understanding and application of the (present) Theory. So, according to the data of the Pt (spiritual DNA) we have also the existence of each intellectual/spiritual quantity (Pp), irrespective of whether the spiritual quantity is undamaged or impaired-altered. We have written that altered Pp is linked to any alteration in the O, and indeed that to the extent that the Theory is absent, the addressing Pp – O doesn’t have absoluteness of achievement and invulnerability. However, as already known, the Pp does not become extinct. Since the Pp does not become extinct so also the addressing of it to the O is not extinguished. In the case, therefore, that we do not have the universality of the addressing P – O (about which we wrote before) that is we do not have the 100 % addressing, we have partial addressing, such as e.g. 30%. This partial, therefore, addressing, the for example 30% exists for any particular part of the O, since, as we wrote , the addressing to every part and element of O is according to the data and the nature of the Pt (spiritual DNA, spiritual identity / quality), and these data are responsible for the very existence of each element of O. As we have proved, the existence of the O (both in its entirety, and in every part of it) is absolutely dependent on P in the addressing series Pt – Pp – O on the presence of the Theory of the Person. Without the presence of the Theory, and according to what we write,

The Theory of the Person

[95]

the addressing is partial and not total, and hence the existence of the O (party and wholeness) partial. Therefore, the O, both in its parts and in the whole of it, does not perish. There is the possibility that it exists a lot, enough, a little or very little. Yet, it can’t be non existent at all. And, since each part and element of our body never completely disappears –due to, as we have said, the addressing of P to O– this means that the identity of O does not change. And that, despite the fact that the O can be existing more or less, and be suffering from any alteration. So there cannot stand the negative relationship with our body: our not loving and not trusting it (see also pp. 23-24, 80-81). Therefore, it cannot stand the negative relationship with our spirit since O = P. Of course, the Pp is changeable, and this is the pathology. Yet, as we have written, the relationship Pt with Pp is unbreakable, and the quantitative recovery is held on the basis of the Pt. We can not have a negative relationship with the part-to-restore since the part functioning the restoration is the, in anyway, perfect Pt. It cannot be that we do not love and do not trust what is the only wanted and that which, out of love and trust (from what else?) we want to restore. To avoid misinterpretation we refer to chap. D, p. 58-62. The fact that the O undergoes no change of identity means that obviously it does not change qualitatively, which means that it only changes quantitatively. Any alteration in O is apprehended as quantitative alteration. Here we refer also in chapter E where we prove that any alteration from the psychiatric aspect (in the brain) is meant quantitatively. Also in the referred chapter we refer to the general codical word (pp. 82-83). This in combination with the fact that the P is present in all the O (no matter to what extent it is present, as we write also above) leads us to conclude that all the O –each element of it– is apprehended as codal word, and not only the brain. So the energy named codal word is identified with the O. Of course, the codal word, which surely is the spirit, has quality and quantity. From throughout the theory we know that the quality is unchanged while the quantity is perishable. And the O, once it is understood as a codal word, it is spirit. Accordingly, O and P are identified. And, any change in the O is lesion in the P , hence in the Pp of P, and certainly not in the Pt. So when we talk about unbreakable-ness, exclusivity and individuality in the relationship-addressing P – O, essentially, since this matter has to do with the any change in the O, we talk about change in Pp. The ensuring of this unbreakable-ness, exclusivity and individuality is the restoration of the spiritual quantity (Pp) .

Let’s be clear here completely in why the O and the P are identical: We wrote and we proved (pp. 86-87) that the addressing Pt – Pp is absolute – regardless of the implementation of the Theory– and that according to the degree of the addressing Pt – Pp the Pp exists. That is, depending on the degree of the addressing, the Pp exists more or less (yet, however, it can’t be that it doesn’t exist at all, as we have written). We have also written that any loss in the O means also loss in the Pp and

[96]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

that –regardless of the implementation of the Theory– the O exists in the degree of the addressing Pp – O. Also, the O is only quantitatively altered. From all these we have that: the degree of existence of O is the certainly the degree of existence of the Pp. Also we have that the O is not altered qualitatively. So, the existence of the O corresponds to the existence of the P perfectly. Accordingly, O and P are identical.

The degree of the existence of the O is certainly the degree of existence of the Pp because, as we wrote, the P is present in all the O (in each element of it), and this irrespective of application of the Theory. So, any other factor apart from the P cannot be present in the O by replacing the P since the presence of P in the O is universal. That, as we wrote, the degree of existence of the O is the degree of existence of the Pp, this is certain. The O (or a part of O) could not exist out of the addressing Pp – O because that would mean that in the O is addressed another factor which is not the spirit (P). But we have in advance guaranteed the universal presence of the codal word (hence the P) in the O. If, despite that the presence of P in the O is universal, yet (with the assumption that we do not know where the O is identical with the P) we have also and the presence of any other factor in the O together with the presence of P, this would be an inconsistency of the said agent with the P. Since the P is present in any element of the O (universal presence), this means that said foreign agent is present together with the P in the O. Thus, the two agents coexist. The foreign factor is apparently foreign also to the codal word (the P, in specific in Pt) or otherwise it would be identified with it and we would have no question. So, the two factors are mutually competitive. And, because the role of both the one and the other is the presence (addressing) in the O, then the two agents compete with each other as to their presence in the O. The codal word is the Pt. The foreign agent competes with the Pt. However, the Pt is integralinvulnerable-absolute. This means that its victory against the competitive foreign factor is absolute. That is, the victory against the presence of the foreign agent (since our subject is the presence of foreign factor) is absolute. So, any other foreign agent has no presence / addressing in the O. Since, except for P, nothing else is present in O, then P and O are identical. In other words, in the O is detected only the presence of P. Here let us clarify further –although it is perhaps needless to do so– that it cannot stand to say and assume that one side or one dimension of the O receives addressing from P whereas another dimension is neutral in addressing, i.e. passive or uninvolved. We have proven that the P is addressed to each element of the O. The reference to the concept of the element is the absolute reference: we are dealing with the elementary. The elemental is preceding concepts such as the concept of dimension. The elemental, which indeed (in this theory) we have not defined in a descriptive / empirical manner and we haven’t engaged it with specific terms and measurements, it is the ultimate and absolute. Therefore, the concept of

The Theory of the Person

[97]

dimension is reduced and refers to elements. The elemental and the elements are ontologically prior to (the referred) dimension at an absolute extent and in absolute terms. And, this absoluteness of the degree and the way is what makes the P so much present in the O so as to conclude to that the P is identical to the O. On the subject of the competition between Pt (codal word) and foreign agent, let’s note this: We could say that the foreign agent is not associated competitively with the codal word, that the foreign agent has a neutral presence, so there is no competition question with the codal word (Pt). In this way, maybe it is ensured that there is a possibility for presence of the foreign agent in the O since the foreign agent, as a neutral towards the Pt, is not threatened and therefore the possibility of its presence in the O is not eliminated. To this we answer that once there is neutrality and there is no competition between the codal word and the foreign agent, the universal addressing of the P (i.e. Pt) to the O is not hindered. And since we have universal addressing, we then have universal presence. The addressing of P to O is the presence of P in O, as we know in this chapter. If, however, the presence of P in O is universal, then there remains no space and opportunity to the foreign agent to have presence in the O. We can not say in any sense that the foreign agent is present in any part, element, dimension, etc., of the O, because wherever and however are we to regard the presence of foreign agent there and in that way is apprehended the presence of P. This is meant, if anything, by the universal presence of the P –codal word– in the O. Since the O and the P are identical, the birth of O is the birth of P. In the chapter on the application of this theory in psychiatry we prove that the human does not exist schizophrenically and with corrupted spiritual DNA (spiritual identity, quality), even from the beginning of his / her existence (see p.

77-78). The human is not perfect, and he / she is not born perfect. Yet the spiritual DNA, the identity, we have proved that it undergoes not even the slightest alteration from the beginning of the human’s existence. And as to this, certainly the harmony between parts and elements of the human is absolutely incontestable. The only pathology is the quantitative alteration. Having, therefore, the identity-quality as the absolute reference, it becomes possible the quantitative restoration. The quantitative alteration, which is the only pathology, constitutes, obviously, also the any imperfection. So it is in the human’s nature to be perfect.

The human functions, thinks, wants and acts, not only for him/herself, but also for other people, for living beings, things, mental, spiritual, philosophical, scientific fields, etc. That is, generally for his/her environment –mental and perceptible– i.e. for the others. It is established and understood that the engagement with the others is a part of the human spirit, the P. The P is meant as the addressing Pt – Pp, and the consideration of the Pt – Pp is and stands, as we have

[98]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

said, on the basis of this present theory. It is given the universal presence of P in O, and indeed in the degree of identification of P with O. Since, therefore, that the involvement and energy towards the others (since this is obviously understood as energy P –spiritual energy, that is part and component of P), the P may in no case, so in the case of addressing to the others, be understood as that is acts as detached from the O. This would apply as a possibility only in the case of poor the incomplete addressing P – O, which would introduce a rupture of the P with the O. Yet, this rupture, not only is it not possible, but indeed we have proven that the P is identified with the O. Consequently, in this case also we have the issue and the question of the addressing Pt – Pp, where, of course, P = O. In the chapter on the application of this theory in psychiatry, we refer, in the end, to the general codal word and we say that in it is included the verbal word, i.e. the spoken and written word. We have, as known, the intrapersonal relationship and the interpersonal relationship, but also the relationship with everything that surrounds us, affects us, regards us and interests us. All these relationships are understood and exist as personal functions and elements that is they are within the person / spirit. We have written that, given the otherness –the other beings, whose existence is totally given– the person is not a sterile tank of inner life. So there is the perception, the spiritual relationship with the others, which, to the extent that the person has knowledge of his / her incontestable nature, the relationship does not become harmful and does not lay in a pathological level. Given that, as we have shown, the spirit / person is present throughout the body/organism, i.e. in every element of the organism, in a greater or lesser extent (and in fact, according to the above, we have P = O), we have that the general codal word, that is the spiritual word, the intellectual energy, understands and is related to any other stimulus and datum. Our spirit, that is, is not only verbally associated with the environment; it is associated in any possible way. If we receive a drug for our illness, our spirit is associated with this medicine. For example, if someone makes us acupuncture, our spirit is associated, it converses, we would say, with this process. Beyond that, our spirit may benefit, evolve and be realized or, on the other hand, be suppressed and a pathology to emerge, which, as we have proven, means reduced addressing of the spirit to the body, thus physical pathology.

On pp. 96-97 we came through conclusive proof of this theory that the person is absolute otherness in relation to other persons, but also in relation to what is of non-personal nature. And we noted that in any case of pathology we should refer to this absolute truth and reality for treatment. Since in this chapter we showed that P = O, we complete the truth and say that the whole entity called human constitutes an absolute otherness in relation to anything that is not included the same/own, i.e. anything not being a component of the entity that is each

The Theory of the Person

[99]

particular human. And, the reference to this ultimate truth and reality recommends and conducts the healing. Here we refer also to pp. 84, 61-62, 48-49.

And since, as we write at pp. 77-78 on the basis of proof, there is not in any degree the not loving and not trusting our own person. There is only the quantitative change / repression of us, this means that there is not in any degree the not loving and not trusting the whole of our existence. There is only our quantitative change / repression.

Since there is no death, that is the termination, extinction of the human –of any element of the human entity– then the so-called death is simply a pathology.

That is illness. A psychotic person is not in all the parts of his / her mind depressed and psychotic. Someone facing a physical disability, such a foot that can not function and walk, or it be cut off, yet he / she has the other leg, and it is well, he / she has two strong hands, etc. So also in the so-called “death” nothing leads us to conclude that all the elements and components or dimensions of the human have been suppressed. If a healthy person we believe that has his / her functionselements in sufficient quantity, and we believe that a patient has some of his / her elements fairly or very suppressed, but yet only some of them, then in the so-called “late” some elements-functions have sufficient quantity in the same way they are sufficient to the human who has not “passed away”. There is no death; there is only pathology, which always lies in quantitative change and never in qualitative change, i.e. change in the identity. We have repeatedly made word about the complex of priorities in the human, which complex is the human’s life in time (p.

50). According to what we have written, p. 59, each suppression creates different dynamics and course to the referred complex. This means that the other functionselements change in quantity, whether by being increased or by being decreased.

Since “death” is also a suppression and nothing different than this, there applies the change of dynamics in the complex-composition-synthesis of the elementsfunctions of the human. And, since this repression is extreme, then analogously extreme shall be also the change of the referred dynamics of the (incontestable, non-deconstructed) synthesis that is the human entity.

The issue and the conclusion of this chapter we can also prove on the basis of Chapter E, “The application of the present theory in Psychiatry”, based on the following elements: A) The person –which is summarized in the wordy formulation “I am” and that wording constitutes the general codal word– is identified with the brain, which is material and organic (pp. 82-84). B) The human cannot possibly exist schizophrenically and indeed from the first moment of his / her existence (pp. 7879), so the formulation “I am”, which is absolute, is effective from the first moment of existence and life of the organism.

[100]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

The A grants a portion of B, i.e. a part of organicity, which is the brain.

However, B on the organicity precedes timely-evolutionarily in relation to A, so the A in this respect is contained in the B. The A guarantees the identity of O and P in the level of the connection-granting, which has the meaning of the organicitystructurality of the codal word (person = brain). The B guarantees the identity of the O and the P at the level of timely- evolutionary universality/catholicity, which has the meaning of universality /catholicity of the codal word. Both guarantees regard to the codal word (“I am�). Therefore, their marriage implies the universality of the organicity in the codal word. That is, the partial organicity of A (person = brain) is included in the timely-evolving universality of B, which B assures the integrity of the O. Therefore, the partial organicity relates to the whole in the integral-absoluteperfect way. So, P = O.

The Theory of the Person [101]

References: [1] Goleman, D., (1995) Emotional Intelligence, New York, NY, England: Bantam Books, Inc. [2] Nestoros, Ioannis N., (1996) In the World of Psychosis : Eric´s odyssey and other cases, 2nd ed., Athens : Ellinika Grammata [3] Rogers, Carl, (1951) "Client-Centered Therapy" Cambridge Massachusetts: The Riverside Press.

[4] Rogers, Carl, Lyon, HC, Tausch, R., (2013) On Becoming an Effective Teacher – Person-centered teaching, Psychology, Philosophy, and Dialogues with Carl R. Rogers and Harold Lyon. London: Routledge [5] Nestoros, Joannis N., Synthetiki Psychotherapy: An integrative psychotherapy for individuals with schizophrenic symptoms, Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy, Vol 31(1), 2001, 51-59. doi: 10.1023/A:1010230915700

[102]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

The Theory of the Person [103]

The idea of Saita publications emerged in July 2012, having as a primary goal to create a web space where new authors can interact with the readers directly and free.

Saita publications’ aim is to redefine the publisher-author-reader relationship, by cultivating a true dialogue and by establishing an effective communication channel for authors and readers alike. Saita publications stay far away from profit, exploitation and commercialization of literary property.

The strong wind of passion for reading, the sweet breeze of creativity, the zephyr of motivation, the sirocco of imagination, the levanter of persistence, the deep power of vision guide the saita (paper plane) of our publications.

We invite you to let books fly free!

[104]

Emmanuel Xagorarakis

This theory does not require special studies so that it is understood.

How would the Theory of the Person be addressing only to persons having special studies?

In this book I put the philosophical way of thought together with the accuracy of the mathematical thought. And the outcome is only proofs. Proofs of mathematical accuracy about existential matters that are mainly the topics for Philosophy.

Proofs about the entity of each person-individual. It is here proven what is the person-individual and how it exists; that is I, you, and the others.

This book confirms you as an entity in general, and absolutely. Through proofs. It is here proven that you never lose yourself –your being– not even the least of it!

You don’t have to worry, not even bother, if and how much you have been altered or have schizophrenic elements.

There is no reason for you to be thinking about your future inexistence, your death.

There is no Schizophrenia and there is no Death; not at all.

In this book the proofs are given about what is and how is conducted the each and every therapy of the individual. In essence, what is proven is our personal freedom, which we never lose, but we always wish and need to foster, to restore it quantitatively, and never existentially. As beings, as entities, we are totally free, whether we understand this or not, whether we see this a lot or a little.

And, as I prove, the more we perceive that we in any way are free entities, and that we never loose our self, the more we get cured from anything, that is we restore our weaknesses, as being humans perfect in our synthesis and our identity.

ISBN: 978-618-5147-85-3