In terms of , many noteworthy theorists have offered theories of this type of psychopathology. These theories include psychosis that may be seen in terms of the theory of the mind. This proposed understanding of psychosis has been reflected in the Jungian theory of the collective and the archetypes that inhabit it. Essentially, the more or less psychologically aware person, in Jungian theory, would encounter archetypes in his mind, and his successful negotiation of this intrapsychic or, perhaps, interpsychic experience would correspond positively with his understanding of his own mind and the collective unconscious.

This explanation of psychosis may or may not be valid. However, the validity of a particular theory may not rely on some construed or constructed “truth” of a given theory, but, rather, how the theory, when adhered to, allows the individual to function in the world. Essentially, a theory’s usefulness defines its validity, as opposed to the “truth” of a theory.

Jung postulated deep-rooted mythical symbols as inhabiting the mind. The idea of the collective unconscious may be unpalatable to many scholars, due to the reality that there is little or no evidence that the mind represents, unconsciously or not so, a collectivity. It is known that, after the break with his mentor, , Jung experienced an extended period of psychosis, and this experience formed the basis of his theory. His postulation of the collective unconscious likely reflected a theory of based upon an explanation of his own mind’s experience of psychosis. Jung’s collective unconscious may reflect a dysfunctional way of understanding the mind. Jung’s theory of the mind may be termed a psychotic construction.

Contrary to Jungian theory, Freud proposed the personal unconscious. In terms of an explanation of psychosis, asserted herein, the psychotic mind may be construed to implicate a personal unconscious. Moreover, psychosis may amount to objectification of the mental realm. This means that the psychotic individual would perceive his auditory as separate from himself, even while they may reside within a single mind, that of the psychotic individual. Auditory hallucinations may seem to form distinct personalities in the mind by the psychotic individual. Jung would term these “the hero”, “the god-man” and “the shadow”, and other archetypes. Note that what is contended to be the “distinct” personalities in the mind of the psychotic individual may nevertheless mutate in the psychotic individual’s experience, even though they may nevertheless be thought to be distinct in the mind by that individual.

Psychosis largely results from an imagined subject-object spilt in the mind of the psychotic individual. This means that the mind of the psychotic person contains both the “self” and the “other”, as construed by that individual. The self-object relationships with one’s hallucinations, involving the imagined presence of others within one’s mind based upon auditory hallucinations, evolve by means of the psychotic individual’s non-normative thoughts or ideas that are not traditional. Note that divergent thought correlates with psychosis in the psychotic individual, and this divergent thought may be said to rely on non-normative experience. is a correlate of psychosis, and this stems from the actual divergent thought of a schizophrenic, in addition to the uncharted non-normative experience that the psychotic individual can feel compelled to negotiate.

Hallucinations, appearing as supposedly distinct “personalities” within the psychotic individual’s mental realm, may represent recapitulations of relationships derived from early self-object relationships with others in the material realm. This implicates Object Relations theory in the understanding of psychosis. The psychotic person may project onto a fractured part of his mind the seeming “personalities” of people that are important in terms of his development. Primary relationships with one’s mother and father, as examples, can be considered to be symbolic in the sense that our parents represent to us our feelings regarding an accumulation of experience with them. These are constituted by our subjective feelings about them and constructed by our unconscious and subjective knowledge of them. These feelings can be thought to be very primitive and basic to the individual.

It should be understood that the psychotic individual may project onto his auditory hallucinations these feelings that he has carried since early , without identifying in his mind the reality that the personalities constructed in his mind represent his mother or father or any other primary object. While it is possible that he thinks he is communicating with his mother or his father in his mind, he simply may be projecting onto these hallucinations feelings about his parents, perhaps without knowing he is doing so.

As indicated, the mother figure is termed an “object” due to the fact that she is a symbol representing emotional reactions to accumulated interactions with her. The mother object does not represent an entity symbolizing an unchanging and distinct . The morphing of the mother object in terms of the psychotic person’s construction of her in his mind follows from the ambiguity with which the psychotic individual perceives the actual mother object. As a mental figure, she may be experienced, when perceived by the psychotic individual, in terms of that individual’s experience of her as a dynamic and changing symbol in the psychotic individual’s mind. The assertion that the “objects” in the psychotic individual’s mind are distinct and unchanging is of dubious validity. The fact that , and paranoid schizophrenics in particular, may construct intricate systems provides evidence of this.

To re-state the basic argument contained herein, primitive self-object relationships are reenacted by the psychotic individual in his mental realm, demonstrating a reemergence of relationships with specific primary objects such as one’s mother, one’s father and other objects or symbolic people emerging during the course of one’s life in the material realm. One’s relationships with these objects in the material realm may be construed as resulting in projected and objectified entities in the mental realm, that the psychotic individual invests in as important and powerful figures.

In terms of emotional consequences of re-enactment of feelings regarding primary relationships, hallucinations that occupy the mind may be said to be abrasive to the psychotic person, given that perception of a mental realm that is not private to the individual is clearly invasive. As a matter of course, the “subject-object” or “subject-objects” relationships within the mind are experienced by the psychotic individual as punitive. The psychological with respect to these objects may be perceived by the psychotic individual as resulting in a seeming psychological nudity of the self. Psychological nudity is thus a delusion of the psychotic individual based upon his hallucinated experience.

The type of experience that constitutes psychological nudity relies on the fact that all of the psychotic individual’s most personal and, to some extent, “secret” past experience in the mental and the material realms would be felt to be revealed to hallucinations, represented as “others’” within the mind. Note that all people have such “secrets” connoting that they reveal to few if any others in the material realm. The fact is that the mental realm, as construed by the psychotic individual, allows for no privacy in this regard, and this lack of privacy is experienced perhaps as humiliating and degrading.

This psychological nudity within one’s mind, whether it is real or imagined, is very likely to elicit strong negative emotions in the individual who experiences it. One’s primitive emotions regarding early object relations as replicated through psychotic experience in the form of hallucinations would be elicited by the experience of psychological nudity. This kind of abrasive experienced emotion might lead to a catatonic emotional expression, such as that seen in flat affect of the schizophrenic, due to the fact of in dealing with punitive emotional experience that one cannot escape, simply because the psychotic individual is unable to escape her mind.

The psychotic person’s perception of the symbolic entities within the mind is based upon whatever the psychotic individual believes them to be. This may be constituted by emotional “habits” reflected in emotional reactions to the mother object and the father object, as examples. To state this more clearly, the impetus for the evolution of these projected entities reflected in delusional systems may simply represent the psychotic individual’s emotions toward these objectified entities. Importantly, deep ambivalence may be expected in the psychotic individual if this individual is reacting to what can be construed as representations of primary objects, such as the mother, the father, etc.

Ambivalence is hypothesized to drive the creation of delusional systems, and significantly, this ambivalence with which the psychotic individual invests in these seeming self-object relationships would provide an impetus for continued, perpetual and perhaps unending speculation regarding the intentions and the behavior of one’s hallucinations in the mental realm. Essentially, one’s ambivalence toward parental objects, for example, would allow one to project onto recapitulated objects in the mental realm dynamic rather than static interpretations of their composition.

This would account for the apparent changes in delusional ideas that the psychotic individual holds to be valid. Simply, the ambiguity of one’s hallucinations, and the ambivalence that shapes these hallucinations’ subjective presentation in the mind of the psychotic individual, provide the momentum for ongoing psychotic speculation. Thinking about thinking, for all people, is like trying to follow the path of one’s cognitions while at the same time creating it. This is the conundrum of psychosis as experienced by the psychotic individual. One cannot objectively study one’s thoughts due to the fact that the mind cannot witness itself in action, even though the mind of the psychotic individual may be understood metaphorically to be fractured by the experience of psychosis.

What, exactly, is the seeming mental object or personality that is the ? This may be the very question that the psychotic individual seeks to answer. And it is impossible to answer, due to the fact that the mental representation of hallucinations mutates with each act of attempting to analyze it, with the goal of defining it, by the psychotic individual. Whether hallucinations are based on something real or imagined, they are illusory, and attempts to define them or pin them down are perhaps futile.

In terms of the various types of schizophrenia, the paranoid psychotic individual may perceive the goal of defining their hallucinated “objects”, as crucial to her own well-being. The paranoid schizophrenic can be counted on to speculate endlessly the inaccessible realities of their experience of psychosis, simply because she is afraid. Fueled by ambivalence, the paranoid schizophrenic, as stated, simply may vigilantly analyze and reanalyze the presentation of her own imagined and objectified mental constructions, to which she reacts with strong emotion, as she goes on to construct, perhaps, an intricate and complex delusional system.

Due to the nature of by the psychotic individual, the catatonic schizophrenic may be immobilized in this situation by means of punitive experience that results in learned helplessness. Catatonic presentations in schizophrenics may represent the most extreme suffering that a schizophrenic can endure. Their behavioral presentation may represent the epitome of learned helplessness. Whether this learned helplessness is inferred or not from their , it is nevertheless apparent.

In terms of the disorganized schizophrenic, the psychotic individual may be devastated with confusion and pain due to the inability to comprehend her experience, and, similar to that seen in the catatonic schizophrenic, there may be a consequent presentation of learned helplessness in the cognitive realm. This may give credence to the meaning of flat affect. Like catatonia, but to a lesser degree, flat affect may signify the condition of learned helplessness.

As stated, however, many schizophrenics may be likely to trace their mental experience while at the same time creating it, fracturing their minds and finding nothing unambiguous in the experience of psychosis, as ambiguity toward the paternal objects, for example, may fuel psychotic speculation indefinitely. One can see in both very simplistic and very complicated delusions as reflections of the ambiguity with which hallucinations are conceived by the psychotic individual.

As a matter of course, projection represents an educated understanding of what is imagination in the psychotic individual. Clearly, the mental relationships with these primary, symbolic, hallucinated entities may represent whatever the psychotic individual believes them to be. It is interesting that the content of the mind may be fabricated by the mind of the psychotic individual. However, this is an idea that may be self-evident. The psychotic individual bases his delusions on hallucinations and his hallucinations on delusions in terms of a dynamic reenactment of indefinable and indistinct object relations. As such, the mind may be shaped by projection based on imagination. This equates, conversely, with the mind as a “black box”, as asserted by Skinner. It is the final contention within this discussion that our minds may be whatever we imagine them to be.