less prone to jealousy, and have less of a potential for initiating anger. Like a statue needing to be firmly supported by a sturdy pedestal to prevent its toppling, that special relationship of ours that we might have, is supported best by a pedestal of many other relationships, experiences, and situations of ours that can meet our basic emotional need on a more unrecognizable “part”-oriented basis. Without that sturdy pedestal of “parts,” our special relationship with someone, that we might greatly admire, could soon become a pile of emotional rubble that we’d do better without.
What allows us to unconsciously meet a lot of our basic emotional need on an unrecognizable “part”-oriented basis, so that we become more emotionally mature, is the very illogical way our unconscious “thinks.” To unconsciously perceive a part within a relationship, experience, or situation, implies that our unconscious is able to perceive pleasurable parts of our relationships, experiences, and situations that can meet our basic emotional need, as well as unconsciously perceive unpleasant parts of our relationships, experiences, or situations that frustrate our basic emotional need. As such, we may not consciously know what is being unconsciously perceived as meeting our basic emotional need, nor know what is being unconsciously perceived as frustrating that need and creating anger to be stored in our unconscious. This is in contrast to our conscious thinking which perceives our relationships, experiences, and situations as “whole” entities, and where what meets, and what frustrates our basic emotional need, and makes us angry, can be readily recognized. That which recognizably, or unrecognizably, frustrates our basic emotional need will always create a degree of anger that will be either immediately expressed, or will be stored in our unconscious. Our conscious thinking differentiates those recognizable relationships, experiences, and situations that are in the memories of our past that either met or frustrated our basic emotional need, from those that are recognizably meeting or frustrating our basic emotional need in our present.
The conscious thinking of schizophrenics may appear very different from the conscious thinking that we do. (Von Domarus “The Specific Laws Of Logic And Thought In Schizophrenia” U. Of Ca. Berkeley, CA 1944) Our conscious thinking tends to be logical thinking, because it follows the laws of Aristotelian logic. The first of these laws is the “Law of Identity.” This law states that entity “A” is always entity “A.” Whether that entity is a thing, person, experience, or situation, it is recognized by our conscious thinking as not the same as entity “B,” which might be some other thing, person, experience, or situation. With our conscious thinking, we can easily recognize entity “A,” and entity “B,” as having separate identities so that entity “A” can’t logically ever be entity “B.” Because our conscious thinking perceives on a “whole” entity basis, it makes the differences between entity “A,” and some other entity, more readily seen. Schizophrenics aren’t characterized as always showing logical thinking. They show a type of conscious illogical thinking where two very different entities can be seen by them as identical if they share the same predicate. It’s sharing the same perceived predicate that can make two entities identical with schizophrenic conscious thinking. Von Domarus called this characteristic of schizophrenic thinking, “predicate-equating” which he felt was limited to schizophrenia, and, as such, diagnostic of schizophrenia.
We may recall from our high school English, that a predicate is that part of a sentence, or a clause, that describes the subject. A predicate tells us what the subject is doing, or being. It specifically defines the subject. As an example of this equating by a shared predicate, a schizophrenic woman might tell us, “Mary, Mother of God, is a virgin. I am a virgin. Therefore, I am Mary, Mother of God, and you should make the sign of the cross whenever you see me.” “Being a virgin” is the commonly shared predicate between this schizophrenic, and “Mary, Mother of God,” that can then make these two different entities identical for the schizophrenic. This schizophrenic isn’t telling us she’s similar to Mary, Mother of God. She’s telling us she is Mary, Mother of God! Many delusions of schizophrenics show this same illogical thinking that’s based on equating from an unconsciously, or consciously perceived shared predicate, whether that predicate is a true fact of reality, or not. The commonly shared predicate could be illogically contrived and untrue with schizophrenic thinking. For instance, if I were a schizophrenic, I might tell you, “Napoleon was short in stature, and I am short in stature. Therefore, I am Napoleon, and because I am, you should address me as 'Emperor’.” To me, “being short in stature,” is the equating predicate that makes Napoleon of the distant past, and me in the immediate present, identical. I could tell you this even though you might see that I’m not noticeably short in stature! I could still feel as though I am and, as a result of my feeling this way, I can equate myself with Napoleon with this illogical kind of thinking. My believing I’m Napoleon is a delusion because my belief doesn’t fit with the facts of my reality. That delusion is a delusion of grandeur, and, as such, it is an unconscious attempt of mine to compensate for my unconsciously feeling so unimportant, or feeling so badly, or of so little value or worth, about myself.
What is often evident with “schizophrenic thinking” is just how our unconscious thinks. It utilizes that same predicate-equating that schizophrenics use! For instance, it’s sharing the same predicate that can unconsciously equate memories of people, experiences, and situations, or parts of those entities, from our past, with what is being perceived by our unconscious in our immediate present. If entity “A” was a thing, person, experience, or situation that existed only in our past, we logically wouldn’t see it as existing at all in our present. But with that schizophrenic-like thinking of our unconscious, that which only existed in our past, can be illogically seen as existing right now in our immediate present. With this illogical unconscious thinking, entity “A” of our distant past can become the same as entity “B” of our immediate present. They become identical by predicate-equating just like that schizophrenic woman became identical to Mary, Mother of God. This being unconsciously able to make entities, or parts of entities, of the past, the same as entities, or parts of entities, in our immediate present, can bring our past right into our immediate present, as we talk to someone to correct whatever the “wrongs” were of our past, or to emotionally re-duplicate the past “good” times we might have had. Some thing, person, experience or situation from our past can become equated with a part we unconsciously perceive in a listener right now in the immediate present! It’s through our unconscious predicate-equating that we can then make “right,” what we might feel was so “bad,” or “wrong,” about our past, or to re-experience in the immediate present what was so “good,” or so pleasurable, in our past.
Developing delusions to better meet the basic emotional need is not an uncommon characteristic of the human race. It’s a characteristic that can begin early in life. Most children in this country, as well as many other countries, do believe in a Santa Claus, an Easter Rabbit, and a Tooth Fairy. Because there is no reality basis for the existence of these entities, these beliefs are delusions. They are delusions not seen as such but as “beliefs” that are beneficial in meeting better the basic emotional need of children. These imaginary entities are seen as caring and loving, and possessing spectacular supernatural powers that can defy the limitations of what can be accomplished by humans. Because they can bring happiness and joy to the believer, these entities can meet much of what might be unmet of the basic emotional need. Because children believe so strongly in them, these fantasized entities can become perceived as truly existing in their reality. Unconscious predicate-equating is involved in the development of these socially acceptable delusions. That which can meet well the basic emotional needs of children, becomes unconsciously equated with the entities of these beliefs. With unconscious predicate-equating, the entity of the belief can become identical with anything, or parts of anything, that might meet well, or did meet well, a child’s basic emotional need. The more of that which can meet well the basic emotional need in a child’s life, that then becomes equated with the entity, the more emotionally significant that entity becomes. The ability of that entity to meet what might be unmet of the child’s basic emotional need is thus greatly enhanced by this unconscious predicate-equating!
Though one doesn’t usually talk to the Tooth Fairy or the Easter Rabbit, children can and often do communicate with Santa Claus, though he does not communicate directly with them. Santa
