Overintellectualizing – Neurosis – Borderline – Psychosis
(proposition of a continuum)
All of these are result of an inability to emotionally integrate.
So naturally it is all placed with the mother and the early environment as a rule of thumb. The father plays a marginal role in standard theory, but is naturally acknowledged. So are siblings.
The family unit as the ground for emotional development. Makes sense, makes perfect sense.
Where does it go wrong?
The theory holds that in one form or another the child is divided into a defence mechanism for survival in the social fabric, and a repressed part. The repressed part is usually sexual and creative and would be iconoclastic. The mechanism repression is guilt. The result is warping of the personality to a standard that is not natural to it. This is neurosis, and from it spring various disasters of the psyche; psychosis and schizophrenia in worst case scenarios, all kinds of personality disorders of more manageable kinds are more frequent and quite pervasive in mankind, especially in layers of intellectual labourers. A world where ideas meet reality in its most innocent form - the trust a child wants to give to its parents. When this trust can not justify itself, the imagination takes hold as a buffer to ward off the naked consequence, which would infer a breaking of dependency - the mind begins to operate as a distractor from the raw emotion of freedom in abandonment, and energy is invested in patterns of imagination to be suspended and not executed. The suspension of this energy is felt as a discomfort related to guilt and shame and leading to overcompensating, oversensitivity to threats and inability to see things in proportion. Inflated and imploded personalities as well as non-personalities such as deflectors and purely passive aggressive types, all failing the quest for an integrated persona and the agency of a clear will.
Have I left anything out?
Have I said anything at all?