The Emotional Prison
Individual and Societal Health in the Philosophical-Psychology Domain
The Emotional Prison is the psychological or functional mental state of being stuck in one’s False Self agency and efficacy — and therefore entrapped within or psychologically governed by Emotional Warfare’s interplay as well as the repeated cycle and underlying cycle(s) of self-abandonment found in the Building Blocks of the EBSS and Perceived Security — without access to the True Self and emotional freedom.
This is the culmination and ultimately the gestalt of all the Building Blocks that comprise the Pattern of Emotional Warfare. It has two levels: (1) inward or intrapsychic, and (2) outward or intersubjective and/or interpersonal. Both of these contribute to the interplay of Emotional Warfare in a manner that can be described, putting variations and nuances to the theory of functionalism aside, as a dualistically metaphysical form of functionalism. Before moving more deeply into the conception of the Emotional Prison, it is important to note that in this metaphysical fashion, this specific use of the functional expression of the term Emotional Prison as an integral component of Emotional Warfare’s Pattern also signifies the intellectual constraints — whether speaking within the philosophical or psychological territories of study — of the limitations of finite rational agents (e.g., the human person) to reach conclusive empirical or fully factual theses on issues pertaining to the metaphysical.
The Building Block of the Emotional Prison — with the subcategories Level One and Level Two — not only brings the field of Emotional Warfare into physical space-time through the temporal (i.e., observable) human person and the actions of the individual and between people, moving the Building Blocks of Emotional Warfare as abstract objects toward concrete understanding through their formal logic and their cumulative effect that informs the action and/or the interplay of Emotional Warfare and its Pattern(s) on or within the field of Emotional Warfare, but establishes the inextricable linkage between the theory of Emotional Warfare and the Philosophy of One Divide. This linkage simultaneously creates two hyper-focused territories: (1) the theoretical framework of Emotional Warfare and its Pattern(s) establishes a philosophy and psychology that is hyper-focused on the human person, i.e., the individual, while remaining consistent with modern theory, and (2) the Philosophy of One Divide — predicated on the theory of Emotional Warfare — provides an overarching hyper-focus on the human species, i.e., the collective.
Together, these two elements make a platform that promotes a comprehensive philosophical psychology and psychopathology framework with influences and principles that span the Eastern philosophy of collectivism and the Western philosophy of individualism, as well as past and modern-day views central to humanistic or social psychology and philosophy.
Level One: Inward Emotional Warfare (IEW)
The person doesn’t realize that he or she is trapped in a False Self, that Perceived Security is ultimately self-defeating, or that the Hidden Agenda will not give what he or she needs — both are malnourishing to the goal of the True Self state of being that has yet to be optimized or known (to either the individual or others). Because Perceived Security does not actually address the needs of the True Self, the True Self eventually begins to push for its own wishes — emotional freedom and authenticity — in terms of the person’s individualized positive (+) energetic qualities of the masculine (A) and feminine (B) emotional traits — through its own voice, no matter how seldom it has been heard or how subtle the message is. In response, the False Self wages Emotional Warfare against the True Self through an individualized False Self strategy of Inward Emotional Warfare that takes the shape of a self-induced language game. This game utilizes predictive or familiar emotional positions and psychological states grounded in past/present/future events or situational dynamics to prevent the intuitive True Self from gaining executive power or functioning or a level of cathexis in the decision-making process and pushing the reactive False Self out. The mental state of the Emotional Prison Level One, which houses the interior, intrapsychic conflict of the individual, produces physiological and visceral effects. It is responsible for negative psychological attributes and emotional cycles within the individual and for the inner speech and ongoing dialogue between the True Self and the False and between the voices that house and reflect the characteristics of the EBSS, Inflated A and Inflated B.
Level Two: Outward Emotional Warfare (OEW)
The person realizes the True Self is trapped by a False Self and tries to break out and live as the True Self, but meets opposition from others, who find their own Perceived Security threatened by the person’s efforts to live authentically — or outside of the deterministic emotional paradigms that are either self-constructed or imposed around the person. These others — those human persons who comprise the social forces and provide voice to existing language games and/or maneuver within language games to speak of “what’s to come” (consider political rhetoric, sciences, religions or ideologies, justice systems, etc.) — then wage Emotional Warfare against the individual to varying degrees, usually forcing him or her back into the Emotional Prison Level One. (*The overall effect of the Emotional Prison Level Two on the individual is dependent on the person’s emotional fortitude or psychological constitution and the depths of his or her Emotional Prison Level One.)
Level One and Level Two: A Sociopolitical Friction Point
This friction point between Level Two and Level One can occur between individuals or, on a larger scale, sociologically, politically, economically, and so on as the individual navigates the social structures or cultures that define and shape conceptions of the ways of being, self, identity, and even society that are deemed to be normal or not normal, acceptable or not acceptable — and that determine one’s level of acceptance, belonging, status, and identity. It is important to note that the individual and the collective — and the Emotional Prison Levels One and Two — are interdependent; neither the individual nor society is a closed system. Here in Level Two, working in tandem with Level One, is where Emotional Warfare Patterns’ interplay between the individual and another or others (or society) takes shape both on and within the field of Emotional Warfare. This friction point between Level One and Level Two inhibits individual autonomy, adds to the paradox of security versus freedom (the dichotomy between individualism and collectivism and within the approaches of humanistic and social psychology), and gives Emotional Warfare a place in the concept of intersectionality, which Merriam-Webster defines as “the complex, cumulative way in which the effects of multiple forms of discrimination (such as racism, sexism, and classism) combine, overlap, or intersect, especially in the experiences of marginalized individuals or groups.”
These outside influences will engage in their own versions of Emotional Warfare to oppose our attempts to change. Not knowing how to navigate others’ Patterns of Emotional Warfare or those created by outside forces leaves us more deeply trapped and emotionally desperate, keeping us in or returning us to Level One. Level Two of the Emotional Prison can lead to a dispiriting widening of the internal emotional divide, further perpetuating our Pattern(s) of Emotional Warfare.
We are dependent on each other for our overall survival, both physically and emotionally, and therefore we must learn to coexist. However, our Emotional Desperation has driven us to obscure the line between a healthy coexistence and an abnormally interdependent existence that has more to do with surviving one another than supporting one another. As our level of security becomes distorted, we sacrifice our emotional freedom. Our unyielding and fundamental need for Emotional Survival, coupled with the intense fear of being alone in life, leads to a deep desire to be a part of something.
Essentially, we are independent people constrained (sometimes viciously) in a codependent world — and the relationship of codependency with Emotional Survival is far more complex than we have understood up to this point.
Of importance, the overall effect of the Emotional Prison Level Two on the individual is dependent on the person’s emotional fortitude or psychological constitution and the depths of his or her Emotional Prison Level One.
One Divide: Universal and Unified Method
A Language System for Individual and Collective Human Transformation: Evolutionary Wisdom and Moral Philosophy
The informational architecture of the Emotional Prison and its subcategories (Level One and Level Two) provides the deeper meta-theoretical design supporting the dual basis and utility of the One Divide/Emotional Warfare platform: the same method that is used to understand intrapsychic Inward Emotional Warfare (IEW) is applied to the interpersonal, sociological, or sociopolitical realms of the human experience, Outward Emotional Warfare (OEW).
One Divide steps outside the subjective and experiential to examine the universal. The platform can therefore require a deep philosophical shift in thought process about one’s biological and psychological constitution. It is a practical self-governing policy designed to improve not only one’s individual condition and character — the positive (+) masculine (A) and feminine (B) emotional traits of the True Self — but the overall human conditions that affect the majority. These conditions metaphorically, and distinctively, produce the conceptualization of the One (emotional) Divide and the objective premises of the universal and unified Method. The Method, crucially, addresses the functional theory of Emotional Warfare not in terms of diagnosis per se (e.g., he or she has Emotional Warfare) but rather in terms of experience (e.g., he or she is experiencing, practicing, and/or suffering Emotional Warfare and its Pattern(s)).
True Self versus False Self
Agency and Efficacy
In any linguistic context, whether within the human person, person-to-person, or in the professional psychology domain (i.e., practitioner-to-person), it is the True-Self-to-True-Self connection that is intuitively felt and recognized, whether intersubjectively between two people or in a single person’s reaction to something that is pursued and captured by another’s true intent. In the Philosophy of One Divide, true intent refers to an authentic manifestation of something (e.g., intellectual achievement, personal growth, spiritual development, art, nature, respectful interaction, acknowledgement, etc.) that leads to the incremental building of True Self efficacy, which is established via the One Divide Method.
A False Self state is a coping/defense mechanism that the Method seeks to largely eradicate or remove in terms of governance, executive function, or where one’s psychic energy or cathexis is centered in a self state of being, though it will always remain to some degree as a vital survival element in the intrapsychic emotional realm or psychological system.
However, it is the True Self state and adaptive behavior, intent, efficacy, and agency that takes control (or has the cathexis) of executive decision making — even in instrumental behaviors and/or decision-making processes for pursuing, attaining, and maintaining vital resources for physical/biological demands or emotional survival needs — when one becomes aware or gains an explicit understanding of Emotional Warfare and its Pattern(s) through the Method.
True Self Agency
A Deontological Imperative
The analytical-philosophy basis of the Philosophy of One Divide provides a language system that has self-evident, qualitative empirical results and produces a writ-large philosophy and philosophical psychology of behavior achieved through propositions similar to formal logical proofs, providing a new theory and a new set of predictions. Defined by Merriam-Webster, a system is “a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole, e.g., a number system.” In this manner, One Divide’s language system is complete, contained, and theoretically sound enough to withstand and/or expose a phrase regimen or set of Wittgensteinian language-game maneuvers, and it is specifically constructed to expose or reveal Emotional Warfare and its Pattern(s)’ interplay.
The phraseology, terminology, and arrangement of the Building Blocks of Emotional Warfare — all of which support their algorithmic sequencing and thus their meaning capturing (generated and supported by the use of category theory) and their algorithmic information — not only allow for a human person’s innate pattern identification and processing and pattern recognition to occur, i.e., learning, but are by definition a language system in and of themselves. This creates the semantic notion of Emotional Warfare: a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items (i.e., the Building Blocks) that form a unified whole (i.e., the subconsciously driven Pattern of Emotional Warfare and the intrapsychic and interpersonal/intersubjective interplay of Emotional Warfare).
This linguistic structuring returns the focus to the individual in a philosophical purposive way: when a person tries to explore any of the Building Blocks’ interconnected attributes, the False Self will instinctually react, out of its drive for self-preservation. One Divide’s universal and unified Method provides a Universal Individual Education Plan (universally applicable and individually interactive) and systematic process that allows one to work through the False Self’s resistance. As a person explores each of the Building Blocks and moves toward a life of balance and a unique emotional equilibrium via practice — what is termed in the Philosophy of One Divide security in freedom — he or she will find meaningful answers and an individual and collective truth (similar to Jung’s collective unconscious).1 The person will discover a separation of the physical and spiritual worlds rather than a disparity between them, revealing a dual agency and the distinction between the purposes of the True Self and False Self. This allows the person to operate within a Reversed Cycle, which occurs when one is governed by the positive energetic qualities, traits, and attributes of one’s True Self’s agency, rather than a repeated cycle, where one is governed by the negative energetic qualities, traits, and attributes of one’s False Self’s agency.
Ultimately, this leads to acceptance of the principle of True Self agency and the deontological imperative as a means to an end — that is, to evolve beyond False Self agency. In broader sociopolitical contextualization, with widespread awareness and application, the One Divide metaphor provides a writ-large evolutionary wisdom philosophy and moral imperative centered on “closing the One Divide,” moving society away from conflict and toward collective human unity.
- Jung, C. (1969). The archetypes and the collective unconscious. In R. F. C. Hull (Trans.), Collected works of C. G. Jung (vol. 9). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Explore more Deep Dive Articles