Deep Dive

The Philosophy of One Divide®

One Divide Philosophy

The Philosophy of One Divide is built on the philosophical and psychological premise that all human persons have an "inner emotional divide," a disunity within the emotional realm or psyche regarding their conception of self and identity, that simultaneously establishes a heterogeneous outward divide between people and a gamification of identity, influencing both their individual conditions (including mental health conditions) and the broader sociopolitical theatre. This One Divide is why we haven't been able to attain sustainable and widespread individual and societal heath or establish a universal behavior model or human psychological theory and secular moral theory — the facets of philosophy that deal with morality outside of religious or spiritual traditions that are external from the human being — and achieve what many have yearned for over the centuries: simultaneous independent emotional freedom (individualism) and ONEness (collectivism).

“Individualism and collectivism are opposing forces; however, neither can exist without the other. They are inextricably connected through their dependence on the individual — a singular life domain. This holds true universally, in every culture around the world. Furthermore, in either theory, a given society's level of equality or ONEness — which has been the aim of many throughout history and which we continue to seek — grows out of the state of the parts that comprise the whole. Thus, whether speaking in individual or collective terms, a community's elevated state of collective consciousness or ONEness is dependent upon the consciousness or ONEness of the individuals within it; the individual state transcends into the external form. If the individual is divided, the collective will be divided…as the individual cannot be part of a whole if he or she is not whole.”

- The Reference Guide to Emotional Warfare® and the Philosophy of One Divide®

The One (Emotional) Divide and Emotional Warfare

To reach full potential as individuals and as the collective human species, humanity needs a new approach to understanding human conflict and how to attain human unity, and it needs new intra- and interpersonal navigation techniques that can be applied within the natural world while dealing directly with the reality of human experience. Of course, this is accomplished through self-examination — however, self-examination has been around since the earliest forms of philosophy, both in East and West, and in the modern era of self-help and self-diagnosis, and many such philosophies have been exercises in futility. Indeed, the idea that the answers people seek are inside them is not new. Nor are the debates about nature versus nurture, mind versus body, dualism versus monism, or what exists beyond the ontological and epistemological, i.e., the ineffable. But to discover what lies within, people must do something humans generally resist — look deeply at themselves, within their given cognitive capacity to do so, and examine their lives and the roots of their behaviors while understanding the nature of their own humanity and that of other people they encounter.

Doing this means asking some real and tough questions, both metaphysical and objective, and questioning the intersubjective beliefs that underpin the current uses of language — beliefs that involve society, which creates context and meaning and determines the intersubjective views of normalcy, morals, ethics, justice, social justice, states of well-being, mental health, what is considered adaptive/maladaptive behavior, and what should or should not be a diagnosis in the psychological or psychiatric domains. In general, one can begin by asking: Do people really want equality and peace between them? Is it possible to experience true hope, love, and trust — actualized states of individual and societal well-being? If people did, would it inspire them to be more evolved in their thoughts and actions, both as individuals and collectively? Are equality and peace real possibilities without a moral universalism? What would an overarching behavioral and moral framework that cuts across space and time and various sociohistorical cultural domains look like in today's fragmented, pluralistic society?

Answering these questions involves learning to accept the world and people's place in it more pragmatically. For the human experience to become one of equality and peace — to operate within a conceivable framework of individual and societal well-being and cogent forms of social justice that transcend the historicity of social class hierarchies and/or socioeconomic strata in human civilization — each person must examine humanity's underlying and apparently unchanging nature, or at least (pragmatically and practically speaking) have a philosophical platform that provides the venue for contemplation of it.

Humans, whether in adaptive or maladaptive ways and whether viewed as independent or interdependent agents, all operate within the realm of desire: desiring to be successful in life, personally and professionally; desiring autonomy, emotional freedom, authenticity, and control over their own destinies and personal value; perhaps most importantly, desiring a sense of significance to their existence, as well as forms of social authority (e.g., dominance) within their familial dynamics, interpersonal relationships, communities, or given industries. However, all of this involves the participation of others — whether knowingly or unknowingly on the desirer's part and willingly or unwillingly on the others'. This ubiquity of individual-to-social and/or social-to-individual influence dynamics constitutes the human experience itself. Everyone experiences personal discord within the self and conflict with others. This is in large part due to a paradox: the opposing needs for security and for freedom. From this paradox arises ever-deeper conflict within and between all people. In many ways, people have become subconsciously and/or unconsciously reliant on this conflict to create the change they are looking for — to move from devalued states of being to valued states of being and/or more desirable narrative identities — only to find, in the end, neither security nor freedom. To reverse this cycle, individuals must change their beliefs (or operating mental states, mental representations, etc.), both about their own personal behavior patterns and about human nature as a whole. The Philosophy of One Divide is a new platform satisfying these issues.


Groundwork to Identifying the False Self and True Self:

Building Off and Further Developing Donald Winnicott's False-Self Disorder

Understanding one of the central elements of One Divide's platform, the concept of Emotional Warfare, provides the groundwork to identifying the False Self — the self state or persona one develops as a survival mechanism that serves in two ways: first as the person's interior or intrapsychic coping and defense stratagem in response to the person's introduction to Emotional Survival and self-preservation, and secondly, later in development, as the external faceplate and representative of the person to the outside world, utilized to gain and/or manipulate a level of acceptance, belonging, and social embeddedness from another or others — building off and further developing Donald Winnicott's false-self disorder. (Note: This is discussed more thoroughly in Deep Dive Section 3: Anatomy of the Pattern of Emotional Warfare). This identification and deconstruction process allows one to find and protect one's independent emotional freedom (and attain advanced levels of self-expertise, emotional intelligence, and social intelligence, combining to form an intuitive abstract intelligence) in what I have termed, in a contemporary manner (with contemplative attributes in place), the True Self — the self state or most authentic expression of one's best qualities, which generates an intuitive sense of ethics and moral truths and is the agent of optimized behavior states and habits that produce all meaningful human change — in a manner that improves society. One can then achieve overall emotional well-being through an empirical, qualitative methodology that teaches one to help the True Self, providing a contemporary form of true self-help influenced by philosophical and psychological science and the philosophy of psychology, designed specifically to address human agency as found in the psychological and psychosocial field intersectionality in the natural world.

Each person, trying to survive — and thrive in some regard or to some degree — builds a False Self, basing it off the behaviors the person observes in others. In this sense, the False Self is formed in reaction to the observed and learned behaviors of others and society's structured machinations and current ethos. Imitation and mimicking are intrinsic traits of human behavior (consider mimesis1 or the anthropological philosopher René Girard's mimetic theory2); as humans are social actors, performances, representations, and depictions are vital elements of individual and collective social abilities — even those that are antisocial or rebellious and/or fall outside the norms of a given set of societal parameters. However, despite the innate human ability to imitate the socially accepted behaviors of others, misconceptions, miscommunications, misinterpretations, and so on are also constants. Human conflict has many variations and involves a multitude of underlying causes. Nonetheless, I assert and intend to demonstrate that the One (emotional) Divide is the instigator to all human conflict, as misconceptions, miscommunications, and misinterpretations take place first within the individual, between the process of interpreting reality and the resulting perception that produces the dialogue between the False Self and the True Self.

With mastery of the theory of Emotional Warfare comes sustainable True Self efficacy, supported by tools for deciphering internal and external “emotionally driven” transactions or forms of dialogue. Because of these transactional patterns, inner dialogue becomes a deterministic value, not only in one's interpretation of the exterior environment but also one's communication and interaction with it, ultimately influencing one's experience of the outer world. Thus, a thorough understanding of this dual transaction influences the shared human experience, as all humans fall within the same parameters of functionality, whether in verbal or nonverbal communication. This understanding results in improved communication skills, both in self-talk and in outward interaction, as language mediates not only the social environment but also personal identities, which comprise both self-identities and social identities (which interact within a deterministic, functional, and multidimensional identity-game matrix, simplified as the gamification of identity). In many ways, this language-based transaction both constitutes and affects a person's identity. It can either be accurately acknowledged or go unrecognized, creating a multitude of complexities in discovering the self and affecting conversation or negotiation with others that moves out of the normative first- and/or second-person desires, the reactive attitude structure, and oppositional–nonoppositional, in-grouping–out-grouping interactions (which I refer to as agreement and disagreement modeling). An awareness and explicit understanding of this leads to a simultaneous ability to learn about and improve one's “self” in a way that can be practiced and to actively participate on a meaningful level in the community (i.e., adding or generating social value), ultimately creating a broad, widespread, choice-based human agency that not only increases overall societal health but moves society toward a unified, elevated state of collective consciousness.

All this can be reached through a philosophical endeavor that examines the One (emotional) Divide. This divide is both a metaphorical space in which Emotional Warfare is generated within the emotional realm or psyche and a space between people within the observable world that prevents human unity and that elevated collective consciousness.


  • 1. Puetz, M. (Winter 2002). Mimesis. University of Chicago: Theories of media: Keywords glossary. Retrieved from http://csmt.uchicago.edu/glossary2004/mimesis.htm
  • 2. Andrade, G. (n.d.). René Girard (1923–2015). Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.iep.utm.edu/girard/

Explore more Deep Dive Articles

One Divide Philosophy Deep Dives →