Читать книгу Psychological Problems and Their Big Deceptions - David W. Shave - Страница 8

Chapter Two

The Illogical Way Our Unconscious Thinks

Our basic emotional need is essentially a need to engender within us pleasurable or “good” feelings, and no unpleasant or “bad” feelings. Our talking to a perceived listener can engender “good” feelings. It’s our talking that most often initiates, and then maintains, our becoming emotionally attached to others in our interpersonal relationship sphere on an unrecognized “part”-oriented basis. Our talking is the adhesive of our relationships. When friends “stick together,” it’s their pleasurable talking that does the “sticking.” Without that pleasurable “sticking,” we’d be going from one overly dependent relationship to another overly dependent relationship. Our pleasurably talking with others allows us to spread out the meeting of our basic emotional need on a “part”-oriented basis so that we’re not exclusively attached to one person to meet a predominance of our basic emotional need the way we once were when we first started out in life. When our basic emotional need is being more diffusely met from the pleasure of our talking with our friends, and from whatever else we take pleasure in doing, we can avoid becoming overly dependent on another person like we were as infants. Being overly dependent on another person is only advantageous if we are spending most of our time asleep, confined to one place, and having a very limited knowledge of reality. Outside the nursery and the nursing home, our being overly dependent isn’t emotionally advantageous to us.

Because our basic emotional need can be pleasurably met on an unconscious basis, we won’t always recognize a part of a relationship, experience, or situation that might be “just a little bit” pleasurable to us. Yet that unconsciously perceived “just a little bit” of pleasure can meet “just a little bit” of what might be unmet of our basic emotional need, making us “just a little bit” more emotionally comfortable. These small unconscious gratifications of our basic emotional need that aren’t recognized by us, can be continually occurring, and meeting our basic emotional need sufficiently enough for us to be emotionally comfortable. With a better met basic emotional need, we are better able to maintain a very special “whole”-oriented relationship source that we might have for meeting our basic emotional need in a recognizable way. When we’re not overly dependent, we become less demanding, less possessive, 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 communicates through his prophets who are “Mom” and “Dad.” Santa is perceived as having an omniscience with his believers as when a child believes, “I’d better be good as Santa knows everything as he’s always watching me to see if I’m being naughty or nice.” What is being “naughty” or “nice” can be made very clear through Santa’s prophets. Santa’s omniscience might remind us of that ubiquitous “all-seeing eye” of the ancient Egyptian god, “Horus,” that made him so knowledgeable of everything his believers did, or didn’t do. Nothing his believers could do, or not do, could escape his continual watching. His “all-seeing eye” is depicted at the top of the pyramid on the front of a dollar bill. Children can believe that an omniscient Santa Claus, like Horus, “sees everything,” and can take a very personal interest in what they communicate to him, even though millions of other children feel the same way, at the very same time. They can write him in great detail what they think would make them very happy with the expectation that they will receive this if they have been doing what they should be doing, and not doing what they shouldn’t be doing. Because Santa is a deity, with the human form of an old man, one doesn’t ask questions that might threaten the belief in him. For instance, one doesn’t ask what really makes his sleigh go when his reindeers’ feet aren’t touching the ground, and one doesn’t ask how an obese old man gets down a narrow chimney and past its iron damper, or how he gets back up the chimney. If he apparently can get up and down a chimney with no difficulty, one doesn’t ask why he doesn’t just go through the locked front door. One doesn’t ask that if Santa is eating cookies and drinking hot chocolate in millions of children’s homes on Christmas Eve, whether one should leave the bathroom light on for him. One doesn’t ask what Santa looked like as a little boy, or if he got any spankings or “time outs” from misbehaving. One doesn’t ask who his mother and father were, or what his DNA is. One would never ask if he gets a yearly prostate exam and a colonoscopy, every five years, because of the age he apparently is. One shouldn’t ask anything that threatens a belief in a deity. No one would want to believe Santa doesn’t exist and that he is only a highly valued creation of the unmet basic emotional need that’s of immense emotional benefit to children. It is the desire to meet what is unmet of our basic emotional need in a never-ending way that is the basis for our socially acceptable delusions that, like children believing in Santa, we might value above all else. We can conclude from this that having a delusion is not at all indicative of being mentally ill!

Predicate-equating is more prevalent than what we might realize. For instance, we can suspect some preceding unconscious predicate-equating in much of what we communicate to others. Taxonomists often show evidence of some previous unconscious “schizophrenia-like” thinking in scientifically naming plants and animals, which then aids people in communicating with each other about those plants and animals. As an example, the New England sand fiddler crab, whose common name derives from predicate-equating a “fiddle,” with its fiddle-shaped claw in front of it, must have reminded the taxonomist that named it, not of a “fiddle” but, instead, a “boxer” holding his arm defensively in front of him, for its scientific name is “Uca pugilator.” Unconscious predicate-equating might have preceded that taxonomist’s conscious reminding. What the unconscious commonly shared predicates were for naming an Indian “Crazy Horse,” or “Sitting Bull,” or naming a bulky WW2 life jacket a “Mae West,” and after the war, a “Dolly Parton,” is rather obvious. “Being sweet” is the predicate you might unconsciously utilize in calling your loved one, “Honey.” Honey is sweet. Your loved one is sweet. “Being sweet” is the predicate that then makes honey, identical with your loved one, so that you refer to your loved one as “Honey.” They are made identical with unconscious “schizophrenic-like,” predicate-equating. You’re unconsciously utilizing predicate-equating, in talking to a friend, if you refer to your disliked neighbor as a “bad apple,” or a “pain in the ass.”

It might be some unconscious predicate-equating that allows us to make a conscious comparison. Someone must have unconsciously equated the lace of Queen Ann, which we can call “entity A,” with the blossom of a certain plant, which we can call “entity B.” With this unconscious equating, someone in the past made “A” the same as “B” when the predicate might have been “having lace.” This unconscious equating is an example of “part-to-part” equating, because the lace of Queen Ann is only one part of Queen Ann, and the lace-like blossom is only one part of the plant. The wildflower is commonly called, “Queen Ann’s Lace.” With our conscious thinking, we know that this plant’s blossom isn’t the lace of Queen Ann. But it’s unconscious predicate-equating that might have made the connection between the two. Similarly, a flower known to the ancient Romans, whose tiny yellow petal of its blossom must have been unconsciously predicate-equated with a tooth of a lion that they had seen in an amphitheater. “Dens” is tooth in Latin, and “leo” is lion. The genitive case of “leo” is “leonis” meaning “of the lion.” The predicate might have been “long and sharp-pointed.” Part of the plant was equated with part of a lion when they shared that same predicate. The Romans named this little plant “dens leonis,” or “tooth of the lion,” which hundreds of years later in France became “dent de lion.” We know the flower as a “dandelion.” Anyone consciously seeing a similarity between two entities, may have earlier unconsciously predicate-equated those entities in their unconscious mind. As another example, the ancient Greeks noted that a certain beautiful flower as always having a root with two distinct bulges that with some unconscious predicate-equating must have reminded them of two testicles, because what they then called this flower was “testicle” in Greek. “Orkhis” is “testicle” in Greek. (The surgical removal of a testicle today is called an “orchidectomy.”) They may have unconsciously predicate-equated the two bulges on the roots of this flower, which is just part of the flower, with the testicles of a male human, which is only part of a human. We call this flower “an orchid.”

This same type of unconscious “part-to-part” predicate-equating might have been involved with wildflowers with common names like “dog-tooth violet,” “Dutchman’s britches,” “shepherd’s purse,” “mouse ear,” “snakehead,” “lady slipper,” “buttercup,” and “ox-eye daisy,” just to name a few. We can easily discern the unconscious predicate-equating that might have taken place behind the common animal names such as the “horseshoe crab,” “hammerhead shark,” “swordfish,” “fox squirrel,” “snowshoe rabbit,” “garter snake,” “cardinal,” and “tape worm.” A small lizard of the Central and South American rain forests that appears to rapidly walk on the surface of water, when frightened, is called the “Jesus Christ lizard,” where “walks on water” is the equating predicate. How illogical predicate-equating can be, which can make it as having no bounds, is evident in calling a flat-topped mushroom a “toadstool,” when toads don’t ever sit on stools! The unconscious predicate-equating should now be obvious to us in the commonly described medical conditions of “buffalo hump,” “saddle nose,” “water hammer pulse,” “pill roller tremor,” and “St Vitus dance.” Psychiatry itself might be guilty of the same type of unconscious thinking it has accused schizophrenics of only having, as evidenced by the “Oral stage,” the “Anal stage,” and the “Oedipus complex.” Our seeing any similarity in two different entities may have been preceded by unconscious “part”-oriented predicate-equating.

“Part-to-part” predicate-equating makes predicate-equating far more widespread than we might initially realize. For instance, unconscious “part-to-part” predicate-equating may be involved whenever we engage in any extended talking with a listener. With predicate-equating, we can unconsciously meet some of what is unmet of our basic emotional need if we unconsciously perceive a very small part, which we can call entity “A,” within our listener that can meet our basic emotional need as we talk to that listener about anything. That small entity “A” that we might unconsciously perceive in our listener as we talk to that listener, can become the same as an entity “B,” or only a part of entity “B,” from our past, if they both are unconsciously perceived as sharing the same predicate “meets my basic emotional need.” With that commonly shared predicate, entity “A” becomes identical with entity “B,” or part of entity “B.” We could also unconsciously equate that small part we perceive in our listener with other things, people, experiences, and situations, or only parts of those, that might have also met our basic emotional need in our past. That equating process enhances the degree to which we can meet what might be unmet of our basic emotional need from that small unconsciously perceived part of our listener. On an unconscious level, a perceived part of that listener, of which we might not be consciously aware, can become emotionally important to us by making us feel more emotionally comfortable when it helps meet what might be uncomfortably unmet of our basic emotional need. Our unconsciously equating that small part, with very different entities, and parts of entities, of our past, might be based on the commonly shared predicate “meeting my basic emotional need.” That unconscious equating can go right on back to that part of the emotional mothering we received during our infancy that first met our basic emotional need. We might now conclude that we could unconsciously find a “good” part whenever we’re engaged in any extended talking with a person if we unconsciously perceive that part as listening to us and making us the center of favorable attention, just as our mothering person first did.

If you and I were to engage in some on-going talking, I’ll unconsciously find a “good” part in you, and you’ll unconsciously find a “good” part in me. Finding those parts will be an unrecognized pleasurable experience, and because it is a pleasurable experience, it will help meet what might be unmet of our basic emotional need. We’ll then continue to subtly meet some of what is unmet of our basic emotional need from those “good” parts, that we unconsciously perceive in each other, as we continue our on-going talking. Though we both won’t recognize that we’re meeting a little of what might be unmet of our basic emotional need from a “good” part that we unconsciously perceive in each other, we both might notice that we’re becoming more emotionally comfortable as we talk, and that we have more of those desired comfortable feelings which arise from meeting more of our basic emotional need. We would probably attribute our feeling more emotionally comfortable to the subject of our talking. We might later tell someone, that we enjoy talking to each other because we share a common interest in that about which we talk. Although this might be true, it might not be the predominate reason we enjoy talking to each other. The unrecognized predominant reason for our engaging in any enjoyable talking might be that when we talk to a listener, we’re mutually meeting some of what is unmet of our basic emotional need. It’s meeting more of our basic emotional need that makes us feel more emotionally comfortable. The more we engage in talking to a perceived interested listener, regardless of the subject matter, the more our unmet basic emotional need could be pleasurably met in this unrecognized way, and the more emotionally comfortable we would then become. If we have an emotional problem, whatever it might be, and we’re meeting more of what was unmet of our basic emotional need, so that we’re feeling better, we’ll decrease the size of any emotional problem we might have, even if we weren’t talking at all about our emotional problem! That’s because the amount that we can meet more of what is unmet of our basic emotional need will decrease the degree to which we feel emotionally uncomfortable.

With my continued talking to you about anything, I can become emotionally attached to you in an unrecognized way. My emotional attachment to you would be based on my unconsciously perceiving at least one small part in you that can help meet what is unmet of my basic emotional need. That small emotional attachment may be very short-lived. For instance, if I, at only one time, were to engage in some talking with you, and then never see you again, I could meet some of what might be unmet of my basic emotional need during the time I’m talking to you. After I leave you, I could unconsciously find other “good” parts in the talking I might do with other people that could then be unconsciously equated with that small “good” part that I had perceived in you, from which I could continue to meet what might be unmet of my basic emotional need. My emotional attachment to you, and to others, could be all unrecognized by me, and be unrecognized as well by anyone else. I don’t have to be “bonded” to my listener to be emotionally attached to that listener. “Bonding” refers to “whole”-oriented emotional attachments, that because the attachments are so large, it makes the meeting of the basic emotional need recognizable.

In contrast to what recognizably occurs in bonding, I can be unrecognizably attached to only a very small part of a listener. If I had also been engaging in talking with many other people, which would give me less of an unmet basic emotional need, any “good” part I might unconsciously perceive in a listener wouldn’t be a large part. With a lot of my talking with many other people, the “good” parts I might unconsciously find in my listeners to help meet what is unmet of my basic emotional need, would all be small parts. All my emotional attachments to my various listeners might be very small unrecognizable attachments that are predicate-equated with each other, as well as with what met my basic emotional need in the past, with no recognizable evidence of any bonding.

If I become emotionally attached to you from unconsciously perceiving a “good” part within you that can meet my basic emotional need, our on-going talking will tend to keep us emotionally attached. It keeps us emotionally connected to those “good” parts that we unconsciously perceive in each other that are meeting a little of what might be unmet of our basic emotional need. Each time we’re involved in some talking with each other, we can unconsciously meet some of what might be recently unmet of our basic emotional need. The more continued our talking becomes with a listener, the more we can unrecognizably meet what’s unmet of our basic emotional need. If my reality is continually frustrating my basic emotional need, in the many possible ways that reality can do this, I can be continually meeting some of what’s unmet of my basic emotional need with my talking with you and with my other friends. In doing that, I can decrease the size of any emotional problem I might have because I’ll have less of an unmet basic emotional need, which is the main ingredient of any emotional problem. I can also maintain my unrecognizable emotional attachments to other people with the talking that I do with those people, even though what I might talk about may not appear to anyone as having any significance. That’s very much a big deception because of the unrecognized immense emotional significance of meeting the basic emotional need that is hidden in any extended talking to any perceived listener.

My unconsciously finding a “good” part in you, that can help meet what’s unmet of my basic emotional need, lets me more easily find equated “good” parts in other people with whom I may have some extended talking. This unconscious “part”-oriented equating, that’s based on some predicate shared in common, like, “gives me some pleasure,” which is to say, “meets some of my basic emotional need,” that then leads to emotionally attaching, is the very basis of my spreading out the meeting of my basic emotional need in an expanding sphere of relationships, experiences, and situations. It’s this illogical equating, and the associated unrecognized emotional attaching, that helps form the massive base of emotional maturity that we saw in the last chapter that is made up of numerous small parts of entities that are meeting the basic emotional need. Equating by a shared predicate is the means by which we can leave our infantile over-dependence behind, which better ensures our meeting more consistently, our basic emotional need. We then don’t have to depend on how any one person is feeling at a particular time, or on any one recurring pleasurable experience, or situation, to meet a majority of our basic emotional need. We can meet that need from those to whom we are emotionally attached in an unrecognizable part-oriented way, as well as meeting our basic emotional need from those to whom we are recognizably attached. The former become the protective pedestals for the latter.

Let’s suppose that in addition to that part I might unconsciously perceive in you, that can meet some of what’s unmet of my basic emotional need, I unconsciously perceive another very small part in you that frustrates my basic emotional need. Because that “bad” part has the predicate of “frustrating my basic emotional need,” and is therefore a cause for anger, it can become equated with things, people, experiences, and situations, as well as only parts of things, people, experiences, and situations of my past that also shared the same predicate of “frustrating my basic emotional need.” “Things” can be somebody else’s opinions, conclusions, interpretations, or decisions that contrast with mine, or anything else whatsoever that contradicts how I feel about something or someone. If, in my talking with you, I unconsciously perceive a very small “bad” part in you that is frustrating my basic emotional need, perhaps in not listening to me as well as I feel you should be, or interrupting me when I’m talking, or disagreeing with me, or simply becomes predicate-equated with what I dislike, that small “bad” part can now become the target of my subtly expressed anger that might have been stored in my unconscious from previous recognized and unrecognized relationship, and non-relationship frustrations of my basic emotional need. What has caused that stored anger, and that small “bad” part I now unconsciously perceive in you that creates some anger, become equated with the predicate “causes anger.” This allows that stored anger to now be subtly expressed to that small unconsciously perceived “bad” part in my talking to you. I can subtly “get my anger out” toward that “bad” part in a way that’s not usually recognized if I don’t have a lot of stored anger. Where I might not have been able in the past to express the anger about that something that recognizably, or unrecognizably, frustrated my basic emotional need at the time the frustration occurred, I now can. I’ll do it unconsciously in the talking I’m doing with you now. It’s the predicate-equating, on an unrecognized “part”-oriented basis, that allows me to do that. My being able to do this can prevent me from accumulating a lot of stored anger in my unconscious, which, we will later see, can be a major, but hidden, cause of our emotional problems.

As an example of this predicate-based equating that our unconscious might be doing whenever we are engaged in any extended talking with a listener that can get rid of any stored anger from the past, suppose you feel, “my boss doesn’t understand me,” which you don’t like, and in your talking to me, you unconsciously perceive a very small “bad” part of me that you don’t like. “Not being liked” is the predicate commonly shared between your boss and that unconsciously perceived very small “bad” part of me. Because they each are perceived as sharing that same predicate, the two entities become identical in your unconscious thinking. One entity is a “whole” entity from your recent past, and the other entity is a “part” entity in the very immediate present, which is that unconsciously perceived “bad” part in me as we talk. You can now make angry unconscious communications about that small “bad” part that you unconsciously perceive in me that is equated with your boss. Where you couldn’t express your anger to your boss, you can now. It’s all done illogically, and unconsciously. It’s accomplished by unconscious “part”-oriented predicate-equating! The anger that you had from your feeling that your boss doesn’t understand you, that you didn’t express to your boss, but stored in your unconscious, can now be expressed to that unconsciously perceived “bad” part of me, that’s equated with your boss. You could unknowingly express that anger to that unconsciously perceived part of me in a very subtle way in your angrily talking about your boss, where it won’t be recognized by either you or me. When you talk angrily about your boss, you might simultaneously be angrily talking about that unconsciously perceived “bad” part of me that’s equated with your boss! Since your conscious thinking is logical thinking, you don’t see that your expressing anger about your boss has anything to do with me, and I, as your listener, don’t either. Illogically it does, but only on an unconscious “part”-oriented basis, made possible by predicate-equating.

If you had a lot of recently stored anger that arose not only from your relationship with your boss, but from other origins where your basic emotional need was recently frustrated, all those different origins could now be equated with that “bad” or “disliked” part that you unconsciously perceive in me. What could result is that small equated part that you unconsciously perceive in me could become a much larger perceived “bad” or “disliked” part, just like a “good” or “liked” part, unconsciously perceived in me, can become larger with your having a greater unmet basic emotional need. That “bad” or “disliked” part becomes larger because you have more stored anger, and there is more predicate-equating involved. The anger that you now might express to that unconsciously perceived part in me, could become more recognizable to me, because of the size of the stored anger you had that is presently being expressed. I might then accuse you of inappropriately expressing anger to me. You might deny that there was any reference to me in what you were angrily telling me. You might tell me that I’m getting a little paranoid to be thinking I was talking about you. Because of your recognizable anger to me, I might not want to talk any more with you. If I didn’t recognize that anger as having an illogical personal reference to me, I might want to continue talking with you, because if I was unrecognizably doing the same as what you are unrecognizably doing with me, we’d both be reducing the amount of stored anger we have. We’d be doing this while simultaneously reducing our unmet basic emotional need from unconsciously perceived “good” parts. With less stored anger, and a better met basic emotional need, we’d become more emotionally comfortable.

If you didn’t have that much anger stored in your unconscious, and you expressed that anger subtly, and I didn’t recognize there was any anger being expressed toward me in anything about which you might be talking to me that has made you angry in the past, I wouldn’t feel that any of your expressed anger had a personal reference to me. By talking to more people than only me, where you might unconsciously find a small “bad” or “disliked” part in each of those other people that could be equated with your boss, or equated with those other origins of your stored anger, any anger subtly expressed to a single “bad” or “disliked” part in any one listener would now be in a lessened amount. There wouldn’t be any large “bad” part unconsciously perceived in any one person. You’d be subtly “spreading your anger around.” You could get rid of all the anger that was associated with your boss that might have been recently stored to an uncomfortable level in your unconscious, and getting rid of any other stored anger from your past, by spreading out that anger expression with your talking with your friends. You could express it very subtly to unconsciously perceived small “bad” parts of those friends with whom you are involved in talking, that share a common predicate like, “frustrates my basic emotional need.” Additionally, you could get rid of any stored anger by utilizing other predicates such as, “doesn’t treat me right,” or “disagrees with me,” or “makes me angry,” or anything else that essentially is a frustration of your basic emotional need, and as such, is disliked. In our talking with friends, we could be unconsciously spreading our anger around like we unconsciously spread the meeting of our basic emotional need around. What this means is that we don’t store up anger from the past. We can too easily get rid of it in our talking with others, who are probably doing the same.

If we understand this predicate-equating that our unconscious can do, we might now come to the realization that our unconscious can equate any two or more very different entities in reality, or any two parts of two very different entities. There are no two different entities in the entire world that can’t be equated by our unconscious! Our unconscious can even do it when the commonly shared predicate involves a mutually shared lack of a characteristic, or attribute. For instance, an experience from my past, and a part I am unconsciously perceiving in you right now, as you listen to me talk, can be made identical in my unconscious if they share in common the predicate “doesn’t make me angry,” or “doesn’t give me pleasure.” Those parts wouldn’t unconsciously meet what might be unmet of my basic emotional need, nor would they unconsciously allow me to get rid of any recently stored anger, but those equated parts may “set the stage” for unconsciously perceiving other parts that would. Our recognizing that our unconscious can equate anything, with anything else, by predicate-equating, is the “Rosetta stone” to our understanding how, in our extended talking with others, about anything at all, our unconscious can meet what might be uncomfortably unmet of our basic emotional need, and can get rid of any stored anger from any previous frustrations of that need, at the very same time!

An unmarried chemist, whose work was her life, came to see me when she became depressed. She was a person who met little of her basic emotional need from talking with people. Instead, she was a person who met a predominance of her basic emotional need pleasurably working alone in a laboratory where she had become quite successful. In one of her later sessions of talking with me, she told me how she very much disliked social events but was recently obligated to attend a work-related social function where she stood alone, feeling very much “out-of-place” and “unwanted.” She told me another woman at the social function, in seeing my patient standing alone, came up to her all “bubbly” and said, “I’m a housewife and a mother. Do we have something in common?” Feeling now even more uncomfortable, my patient told the woman she wasn’t a housewife and wasn’t a mother. When the resulting conversation didn’t go well, the woman left my patient and became involved with someone else in conversation. It was then that a young man came up to my patient and said, “I couldn’t help but overhear what you just said to that woman and I believe we both have a lot very much in common. I’m not a housewife, and I’m not a mother either.” My patient told me the remark “broke the ice.” Both he and she laughed. She told me she found it was easy to make “small talk” with him. As a result, she enjoyed talking with him on that first encounter, and she was now seeing him weekly. She told me that she looks forward to talking with him, and that as a result of that talking she now does with him, she now feels she is a lot less depressed.

A metaphor is an analogy which is made to show that two different entities are identical when they share in common some characteristic. It is derived from the Greek word meaning to “carry across.” Metaphors seemingly “carry across” feelings, characteristics, images, or ideas of one entity, to another entity, when they actually don’t. There is no “carrying across” because the two entities of the analogy have become identical from predicate-equating! Because they become identical, the understanding of one entity is applicable to the understanding of the other entity. To understand a metaphorical presentation, suppose I were to tell you, “It’s the early bird that gets the worm.” Though I don’t mention you by name, you know what I say has a reference to you. You know that what I tell you isn’t just about an early arriving bird getting a worm which is something that the bird very much desires. What I tell you is a metaphorical presentation in which the early arriving bird is being equated with a person who arrives early, and as a result of this, is rewarded with what he or she very much desires. I’m also equating that person with you. “Arriving early and getting what is greatly desired” is the predicate that equates the bird with the person, and what that person greatly desires, or needs, and those two entities are equated with you. I’m giving you “good advice,” by this metaphorical means, about the advantages of arriving early. The bird, the person, and you become identical such that what is said about one, fits with the other. There is no “carrying over.” The entities are the same! This predicate-equating is recognizable to you, as well as to me. Both you and I recognize that what I’m telling you about the early bird is metaphorical. What we both may not be aware of, is that this metaphorical language is based on predicate-equating. We’re consciously doing, in understanding figures of speech, what we might have erroneously concluded only schizophrenics do!

If I had told you, “It’s the second mouse that gets the cheese,” I’m using metaphorical language to present an opposing view to that presented about the early arriving bird. The mouse that doesn’t arrive first at the trap, avoiding a terrible personal disaster, while a little later getting what it greatly desires, is being equated with a person who doesn’t arrive first, and who avoids a terrible personal disaster while being a little later rewarded with what he or she greatly desires. That person is also being equated with you. I’m aware that I’m giving you “good advice” about not being first which you recognize. This too is a recognizable metaphorical presentation that is based on conscious predicate-equating. But we can also unconsciously predicate-equate in our extended talking with a listener which can make that talking metaphorical. We won’t recognize our talking is metaphorical and neither will our listener. That chemist, talking to me about the young man she met that was so easy with whom to talk, could have been an unrecognized metaphorical presentation for an unconscious part of her, talking about an unconsciously perceived part of me, that was meeting weekly some of what was unmet of her basic emotional need. If so, that metaphorical presentation would have been made possible by illogical unconscious “part”-oriented predicate-equating. For me to believe she was talking “in part” about me might appear to people unfamiliar with unconscious predicate-equating, and unconscious metaphorical presentations, as my being paranoid. Feeling people are talking about you when you listen to them talk to you about anything, does sound rather paranoid. But metaphorical communications very much do occur in our talking, as we shall soon see, and when they do, they are based on unrecognized predicate-equating. What might appear as being paranoid, could be what is being unconsciously conveyed to a listener, metaphorically, which most often involves contrasting inner conflicts as varied as being an “early bird,” or a “second mouse.”

We may recall from our high school English, that a simile is a comparison. For instance, if I were to tell you, “You are like a work-horse,” I’m presenting a comparison. I’m comparing you with a work-horse. But my being able to recognize a simile was preceded by my unconsciously predicate-equating you and a work-horse. In contrast, if I had told you, “You are a work-horse,” I’m not using a comparison. I’m consciously predicate-equating. I’m presenting that you, and a work-horse, are identical because you both share the same predicate of “working long and hard.” Your hearing me say this to you would probably meet a little of what is unmet of your basic emotional need. In contrast, I might be expressing some not so subtle anger to you if I said, “You’re a dodo,” where I’m equating you with a bird that, before it became extinct, was often described as “stupid looking and stupid acting.” This too is a consciously created metaphor based on unconscious predicate-equating. As another example, a housewife might excitingly tell her sister, “I’ve got a bun in the oven!” where she is consciously equating her fetus with a bun, and her uterus with an oven. Her equating predicate might be, “anticipating something very enjoyable.” Her sister readily recognizes this metaphorical expression of being pregnant. When people use metaphors like these, they are consciously thinking just like what we might have thought only schizophrenics do in their conscious thinking that creates their delusions. We shall later see that we can also unconsciously create metaphors in our extended talking to any perceived listener. What we consciously talk about is often metaphorical in nature for unconscious communications of unconscious parts of us, inter-relating with unconsciously perceived parts of our listeners that are being predicate-equated with what we are talking about that we like, or dislike. We’re unconsciously thinking and talking in metaphor. Though that unconscious thinking is very “schizophrenic-like,” it’s just the way our unconscious always “thinks.” It’s the foundation of our unrecognized unconscious communications, metaphorically expressed in what we consciously communicate to a perceived listener.

What is unmet of our basic emotional need is what causes us to unconsciously want to find a “good” or “liked” part in our listener to meet more sufficiently our basic emotional need. The greater the unmet basic emotional need we have, the greater will be our unconscious search for “good” parts of our listener, and the more likely that a “good” part will eventually be unconsciously found. Similarly, our unconsciously wanting to find a target for our stored anger is what causes us to find “bad” or “disliked” parts in our listener. The greater the stored anger we have, the greater will be that unconscious search, and the more likely that a “bad” part will eventually be found in any extended talking to a listener. With a greater amount of stored anger, someone might recognize that we might appear as though we are “looking for a fight.” Even if our listener actually didn’t have any part that was frustrating to our basic emotional need, we could still unconsciously perceive one. With enough stored anger in our unconscious, we could unconsciously do so even if we were talking at length to God in our evening prayers! Because of a commonly shared predicate, such as “not meeting more fully my basic emotional need,” what we might angrily talk about, and that small part we might now unconsciously perceive in our listener, that also is perceived as “not meeting more fully my basic emotional need,” can become equated. Our angrily talking about something in our reality we dislike, to a perceived listener, could then become metaphorical for unconscious parts of ourselves expressing unrecognized anger to that unrecognized small disliked part of our listener. If our basic emotional need has been recently frustrated enough, such that we have a lot of stored anger, we will unconsciously find a “bad” or “disliked” part in our extended talking with any perceived listener, no matter how “innocent,” or “divine” that listener might truthfully be.

Some people do a lot of talking to their pets, which may have great emotional benefit to themselves as well as to their four legged “friends.” Many people have told me how attentive, interested, and understanding their dog seemingly appears when they talk at length to it, and how much better they feel after talking to it about whatever might be on their minds. The dog is a perceived as an interested and understanding listener. Like Santa Claus, a dog doesn’t have to talk to be perceived as a listener that can make a person feel better. Dogs, like any listener, often do show that they, themselves, enjoy being made the center of attention as someone talks at length to them. The “perceived listener” becomes more emotionally significant, the more that listener is perceived as listening. In our extended talking to any perceived interested listener, we can unconsciously find “good” parts and “bad” parts. Any unconsciously perceived “bad” part can be equated with other entities, and parts of entities, that frustrated our basic emotional need and caused anger which we did, or didn’t, express at the time the frustration occurred. That equating can go right on back to that part of the emotional mothering we received as older infants, when we spent more time awake, that didn’t meet our basic emotional need, but instead, frustrated that need. Our unconsciously finding a “bad” part in any perceived listener allows us to equate that frustrating part with any disliked thing, person, experience, or situation, or just a part of those entities, that frustrated our basic emotional need in our distant or immediate past. Whether we expressed our anger, or didn’t express any anger, at the time our frustrations recognizably, or unrecognizably, occurred, those occurrences of the past can be equated, in our unconscious, with an unconsciously perceived “bad” part in our listener. We can then unconsciously express unrecognized anger, where-ever it may have originated, and then stored in our unconscious, to that part. But that anger will tend to be more recently accumulated anger. It’s not from the distant past!

If I’m engaged in some extended talking with you, any stored anger that I might have, I can now subtly express to that unconsciously perceived “bad” part of you. I could do so talking to you about a distantly past situation where I actually did express anger at that time, so it wasn’t stored. The stored anger, that I subtly now express to you, in talking about that distantly past situation, will be recently stored anger. It won’t be any anger that’s been stored a long time, because I got rid of that in my earlier talking with other people. I might have gotten rid of it in another way that we will soon discover in a later chapter that doesn’t involve talking. With my extended talking with you, I’m getting rid of stored anger that might have been recently stored to an uncomfortable level. The more stored anger I have, which will always be accompanied by more of an unmet basic emotional need, the more uncomfortable I’ll become. I can express that recently stored anger, in an unrecognized way, to that equated “bad” part that I might now unconsciously perceive in you. I can do that while talking to you about some predicate-equated thing, person, experience, or situation from my distant past that frustrated my basic emotional need and made me very angry. But that distantly past anger isn’t the anger I subtly express in talking with you. I am unconsciously expressing recently stored anger that I might have in whatever I might tell you about that distant dislike. I’m unconsciously talking about you, “in part,” when I unfavorably talk to you of a frustrating someone, or something, from my distant past, where I did or didn’t express the resulting anger at the time. That which is a “dislike” about which I’m now telling you, may or may not have been a reservoir for some of my more recently stored anger. If I’m talking to you about something I disliked about my distant past, or about my present situation at home, or at work, and there was little if any recently stored anger in that dislike, that something can become equated with other dislikes of mine where I do have recently stored anger. When I now equate those dislikes with that small “bad” part of you that I presently dislike, they can all become identical in my unconscious. This, then, allows me to get rid of some of my recently stored anger in those other dislikes when I subtly express it unconsciously to that equated part of you, when I specifically talk about something I especially dislike now, or what I especially disliked in my distant past. Even though I might be angrily talking about what I disliked from my distant past, where I did, or didn’t express all its anger at that time, any stored anger, that might now be expressed, is more recently stored anger, and could be coming from a lot of other dislikes of mine, where I had recently stored anger. That specific major dislike of my distant past, and these other dislikes of my recent past, or present, where in each one of them I might, or might not, have more recently stored anger, become equated. What I now tell you of that major dislike of my distant past is metaphorical for my expressing anger that I had recently stored in different dislikes of mine, to an unconsciously perceived predicate-equated part of you. It is not the anger that resulted from the major dislike of the distant past about which I talk! That anger from that distantly past frustration was all expressed long ago, either at the time, or very shortly after.

What usually happens in any extended talking between two or more people is that they unconsciously do find parts within each other that can meet their basic emotional need, and unconsciously do find, as well, other parts to which they can subtly express their recently stored anger. They find “good” parts and “bad” parts in their listeners of their extended talking. It’s toward the unconsciously perceived “bad” parts that they’ll subtly express their recently stored anger, while they’re simultaneously meeting a little of what might be recently unmet of their basic emotional need from their unconsciously perceived “good” parts of their listeners. If you and I aren’t emotionally uncomfortable to a severe degree, and we are engaged in any extended talking, we won’t recognize that we may be each getting what was recently unmet of our basic emotional need, better met, from unconsciously perceived “good” or “liked” parts we find in each other. We also won’t recognize that while we’re doing this, we’re simultaneously utilizing unconsciously perceived “bad” or “disliked” parts to get rid of any stored anger that arose when our basic emotional need was recently frustrated. Neither of us will recognize the emotional importance of what we’re unconsciously doing in our talking with each other, in regard to meeting better our basic emotional need, and getting rid of our recently stored anger. Our emotionally attaching to unconsciously perceived predicate-equated parts of a listener of our talking, that are meeting our basic emotional need, while other unconsciously perceived predicate-equated parts are being utilized to get rid of stored anger, fosters our desire to continue talking with each other, because that talking is making us feel more emotionally comfortable.

Any extended talking that we might do with people about topics that might spontaneously come to mind tends to keep us emotionally attached to those people, even if it’s only on an unrecognized “part”-oriented basis. Through that talking, the “hunger” of our unmet basic emotional need can be continually met, while we’re also continually getting rid of recently stored anger. By decreasing what is unmet of our basic emotional need, and reducing the amount of stored anger we have, we’re diminishing the effects of any traumatic experience of our recent past that might have been a major recognizable frustration of our basic emotional need. If we understand this, we can better understand how “time heals” those past frustrations of our basic emotional need, whatever they might have been. It’s our extended talking with our friends that can do the “healing,” as well as whatever else we do that is recognizably, or unrecognizably, enjoyable to us. It does so because it lets us fill enough of what might be unfilled of our basic emotional need to be emotionally comfortable. Even if we recognizably experienced some major traumatic event that immensely frustrated our basic emotional need and temporarily left us with a large unmet basic emotional need and an equally large amount of stored anger, we can, through our talking, meet enough of what is unmet of our basic emotional need, and reduce enough of our stored anger, to be emotionally comfortable again. We can completely fill that void in the meeting of our basic emotional need, and we can completely get rid of all that anger that arose from that traumatic event, so that there’ll be no “psychological scar” remaining. The more talking we do, the faster is the healing. We may continue to dislike what happened in our distant past, but what was unmet of our basic emotional need, and the stored anger that arose from that past traumatic event, can be fully removed. But we can later store any accumulated anger from more recent frustrations of our basic emotional need, in that same dislike of the distant past. That dislike can then become more emotionally significant, or more bothersome to us, as we store more recently engendered anger in it, from perhaps a currently more adverse reality, that is more unrecognizably frustrating to our basic emotional need, or from a much less adverse reality but where we’re not doing enough talking with others to get rid of recently stored anger, so that it accumulates to an uncomfortable level. This can then deceptively make it seem to us that the dislike of the distant past, like a long past combat experience is the origin of the anger stored in that dislike, when it’s not!

When we angrily talk to a listener about a distantly past dislike, we’re metaphorically expressing recently accumulated anger to an unconsciously perceived part of that listener, and presenting it as though that anger arose from the distant past. We might be storing more recently accumulated anger from less frustrations of our basic emotional need in that dislike of the distant past, if we aren’t getting rid of anger as readily as we did before. It’s our accumulating recently engendered anger that if we didn’t have so much of, we wouldn’t be unconsciously resurrecting unpleasant predicate-equated memories of that which we dislike of our distant past. When we can better meet our basic emotional need, and reduce our recently stored anger, those unpleasant memories, or dislikes of the distant past, won’t come to mind. But if we again store recently accumulated anger in those dislikes of the distant past, they may again come to mind. What comes to mind then from our distant past isn’t our emotional problem! For psychology to believe it is, is what we can now call, “kabuki psychology.” Kabuki is a Japanese pantomime dance where what appears as so obvious, isn’t really so. It would be like our describing an opossum as a perfectly flat animal that likes to take long naps in the middle of a busy road. We’ve drawn the wrong conclusion from what appears as so obvious! What very obviously appear as heavily-costumed women dancers in the kabuki dance are actually male dancers. What might appear as an obvious origin of an emotional problem from the distant past is “kabuki.” What appears as so obvious isn’t what really is! “Isn’t what really is” is the predicate we’ll use when we equate what people erroneously conclude are the distantly past origins of their present emotional problems, with a kabuki dance.

Another hidden but important way we can unconsciously help meet our basic emotional need involves a process called “identification.” Whatever we see, taste, smell, or touch that’s enjoyable to us, can help meet what’s unmet of our basic emotional need. What we hear, that’s pleasurably talked about, may also. We can unconsciously identify with what might be pleasantly described in someone’s talking to us. That unconscious identifying is based on “whole”-oriented, or “part”-oriented, unconscious predicate-equating. Because we communicate in a more complex way than any other creature on earth, we do a lot of talking and listening that gives us much opportunity to unconsciously identify with what is pleasantly described. What we listen to, that sounds enjoyable to us, can help meet what might be unmet of our basic emotional need. Our conversations with others, that may appear as having little if any importance, frequently have favorably described things, people, experiences, and situations that may be pleasurable for us to hear.

To give an example of pleasant talking, and its ability to meet some of what might be unmet our basic emotional need, when we unconsciously identify with it, suppose, as a male, you were to begin an airplane trip across the country, and seated next to you is a woman you have never seen before. You know nothing about this woman, and she knows nothing about you. After you both get comfortable in your seats, you just happen to ask her where she is from, and when she tells you, you discover that she is from the same area where you use to spend your summers when growing up. When this person talks in detail of something she did in this area, that was so enjoyable to her, you can identify with what she is describing. It’s as though an unconscious part of you is participating in what seems so pleasurable that she describes. It’s your unconscious predicate-equating that lets an unconscious part of you identify with what is pleasurably described. Because you do identify with what you pleasurably hear, even if it’s only on an unrecognized “part”-oriented basis, it will help meet some of what might be unmet of your basic emotional need. You might then tell her what you use to do that was so enjoyable to you, when you were in that area. As you describe, in detail, what you did, an unconscious part of her might unconsciously identify with what you describe that was so enjoyable to you. As you both are pleasantly talking together, there are unconscious identifications being made with what is being favorably described, that may then help meet, to a more comfortable level, what had been unmet of the basic emotional need that you both might have. Where you initially may have felt that the woman was neither attractive nor unattractive, and she might have felt that you were too, you somehow now feel attracted to her, and she might feel attracted to you. What attracts you both to each other, is not a hidden “chemical attraction,” or an attraction due to “pheromones,” as some people might have us believe. Instead, it’s an emotional attraction initiated by meeting some of the unmet basic emotional need that each has to some degree. What keeps any relationship between two people on-going is the mutually meeting of each other’s basic emotional need. That’s the very same thing that can make any relationship last for years regardless of the physical attributes of the partners. To believe it’s a chemical attraction, or the result of a pheromone, or that it’s initiated by oxytocin in the brain, is a big deception Instead, it is two people meeting well their basic emotional need from the talking they do with each other. Any extended talking we might do with any perceived listener, can similarly meet a lot of what might be uncomfortably unmet of our basic emotional need.

We do a lot of identifying. While reading a book, watching a play, or viewing a movie, we might identify, in part, with the characters and actors as well as the situation of the presented plot. That identification is based on predicate-equating. Books, plays, or movies become more interesting to us when we consciously, or unconsciously, perceive of them an equating, based on some unconsciously determined predicate that might make us recognizably feel, “I’ve experienced that,” or “I’m a little like that,” or only unrecognizably feel, “That’s me, in part,” or “That could happen to me.” It may be with only unconscious predicate-equating, which might be only “part”-oriented, that lets us identify with a plot, a character, an actor or actress, or some described situation in life. We may have no conscious recognition that we are unconsciously doing so. Perhaps it is similar unconscious “part”-oriented predicate-equating, that may be entirely unrecognized, yet still determine subsequent behavior, that can explain why British military firing squads in WW1, formed to execute a fellow soldier for cowardice, or failing to follow orders in battle, have been known to have missed entirely their intended targets. It can explain why thousands of people recently both emotionally and financially supported the “bullied” high school bus monitor, or why thousands of people similarly supported the “bullied” high school sophomore who was told, as a hurtful prank, she was the homecoming queen, when she wasn’t. When thousands of people “tweeted” that high school girl about her being “bullied”, with statements like, “I’ve been there too,” or “I know just how you feel,” or “You’re my homecoming queen!” they were consciously recognizing the identifying. That conscious identifying, where the person recognizes, “That’s me,” like the much more prevalent unconscious identifying, where the “That’s me” is only “part”-oriented, is based on predicate-equating. One is based on “whole”-oriented predicate-equating, and the other on unconsciously perceived “part”-oriented predicate-equating.

This “part”-oriented predicate-equating is shown in people identifying and wanting to help homeless cats and dogs, or an endangered species. Unrecognized “part”-oriented predicate-equating allows people of either gender to unconsciously identify, or to empathize with, and then want to help, for instance, women with breast cancer, children with congenital defects, victims of a car accident, or anything else whatsoever in need of some form of help. “Needing help” might be the predicate that causes the equating. My learning of a beached whale, while visiting Cape Cod, might cause me to unconsciously predicate-equate that whale with an unconscious part of me. When I perceive that whale needs help to feel better, and I’ve needed help in the past to feel better, that beached whale can then become equated with me. Because of the predicate of “needing help,” I and the whale, or an unconscious part of myself and the whale, have become identical, so that my helping that whale to feel better, is my helping myself to feel better. I might find myself with others, who are also consciously, or only unconsciously, predicate-equating, standing in waist-deep water in January, pulling on ropes to free the whale from the beach. (We’ll see in Chapter Eleven, that my suffering in giving help to the whale, can actually be a cause in itself, for me to feel better!) One doesn’t have to be a slave, like one doesn’t have to be a beached whale, an endangered species, or a veteran with a diagnosis of PTSD, to equate one’s self with a situation that needs changing. Not the financial reasons involving tobacco and cotton, that are so often given, but, instead, people, both consciously, and unconsciously, predicate-equating themselves, in whole, or in part, with the plight of slaves during the Civil War, and wanting the injustices of slavery ended, that caused the cessation of slavery in this country. A great number of possible predicates could have been used by Northerners to create an unconscious “part”-oriented, or a conscious “whole”-oriented, equating, that then led to an identification with slavery, and a determination to end the injustice. It was unconscious predicate-equating by the citizens of New Orleans that made popular the sale of chamber pots in the Civil War with occupying Union General Benjamin Butler’s portrait painted on the inside bottom. He, and the contents of the chamber pot, were being predicate-equated! Citizens were also predicate-equating when they referred to him as General “Beast” Butler. Predicate-equating can occur more specifically as in my seeing a very specific occurrence of something in my reality that I then interpret as a “sign from God.” That “sign” I see, and “God,” become predicate-equated in my mind. With that “sign,” I feel God is communicating specifically with me.

Predicate-equating continually occurs, as we’ll soon discover, in our “small talk!” It is this hidden “part”-oriented predicate-equating that makes our “small talk” so emotionally advantageous to us.