Essential complexes are extreme stagnated childish behaviors of individuals to avoid interacting with the environment as an adaptive system in order to obtain pseudo-benefits to survive.
Human complexes avoid the possibilities of adapting to an environment. They create a parallel reality that hinders dealing with adaptive systems.
Complexes’ objective is to avoid the adaptation process of individuals, generating a parallel reality creating a comfort zone to live in.
Complexes are homologous to “cancer”. They develop at the expense of the individual and eventually kill it; the paradox lies in that in doing so they die as well.
Complexes make individuals or cultures act in the environment in such a way, that they transform outer reality into inner reality.
This way, individuals or cultures lose the capacity to adapt to the environment and confirm the “parallel reality” constructed by the complexes until they reach the point of being completely marginalized from the environment and become extinct or “die” in social terms.
Complexes are fed by fallacies and fallacious utopias that are constructed by women/ men to avoid responsibilities and to satisfy their own beliefs or needs.
We have identified two basic complexes at the level of ontointelligence: The Inferiority / Superiority Complex, to avoid personal responsibility, and the Oedipus complex, to avoid species responsibility.
The ontological approach to complexes is compatible with the psychological approach to them. This compatibility doesn’t mean being identical, because the ontological approach implies dealing with the structure of the nature of complexes without entering into their interpretative causes.
The Benefit of Essential Complexes
Essential complexes build a world in which they generate their own transcendence. They construct a parallel reality where they feel free and suffer no demands. It is a comfortable situation of pleasure and domination that the individual does not want to give up.
Although it feels like being in the womb, it is, in fact, a “cancer” itself.
The Unicist Ontology of Human Essential Complexes
Human complexes provide a comfort zone in a permanent parallel reality based on integrating both the need of independence and dependence.
Essential complexes avoid responsibilities and transform an individual into a stagnated survivor that lives from the environment.
A comfort zone is created, where no feedback can be used and where no learning can happen. An individual is not driven by complexes if s/he is able to diagnose, learn and confirm his/her actions in the environment.
But when an individual is driven by essential complexes then the solving of this complexes can only take place based on the evolution of her/his ethical intelligence.
As soon as an individual matured and abandoned her/his survival stage in a structural way, complexes become transitory solutions for unmanageable situations but not a structural problem.
The structural segments of essential complexes are:
Superiority / Inferiority Complex
- Superiority complex: This is a dominant behavior segment that is apparently seeking for independence, but, as this doesn’t exist in adaptive systems, generates the necessary conflicts to dominate using the feeling of superiority.
- Inferiority complex: This is a dependant behavior segment. In order to take advantage from the environment and minimize their responsibility and energy investment, they use their feeling of inferiority to justify their actions and inactions.
- Instinctive behavior segment, to generate extreme complementary relationships abusing the complement in order to satisfy their instincts and avoid conscious experiences and responsibilities.
- Anarchic behavior segment, to generate the necessary authority conflicts to ensure an apparent independence based on destruction and extreme subjectivism.
The Concept of the Human Essential Complexes
- Remain in the comfort zone of a parallel reality to avoid responsibilities
- Imagine a role with no responsibility for personal risks
- Establish areas of superiority that do not need to be confronted with facts
- Establish areas to follow others in order to avoid risks and blame them for the problems
- Confirm the area of no responsibility using fallacious myths and utopias
- Establish areas where the “here and now” is dominant
- Establish the necessary subjective confrontations with authoritative roles in order to disqualify them for their implicit weaknesses
- Establish abusive extreme symbiotic relationships to destroy any complementary cooperation
- Confirm the impossibility of assuming the responsibility for results that exceed the “here and now” actions, judging himself/herself for his/her intentions and others for their actions (or intentions if the actions were successful).
The Ontogenetic Structure of Essential Human Complexes
The purpose of essential complexes is to give a fallacious solution to the personal weaknesses of individuals.
This implies that the risk of developing essential complexes arises as soon as a child begins to have an interdependent role with the environment.
The capacity of elaborating frustrations and the energy the individual has available to influence an environment are basic to avoid the installation of essential complexes.
But the complexes do not depend exclusively on the individual. They also depend on the environment and the family context.
Cultural archetypes include fallacious myths to sustain the cohesion of cultures that imply a sort of “chronic stagnated characteristic”. They might or not be considered as essential complexes, but they surely foster the installation of complexes in the mind of the members of a culture. An individual is in touch with the archetype of a culture as soon as s/he is born.
The family context is the near context for the development of individuals. Therefore, the educational model that is implicit in a family, works as a catalyst or inhibitor for the evolution of the essential complexes of individuals.
Finally, the formal education of individuals can generate the social context for the evolution of complexes or just fallacious myths. Fallacious myths are necessary to integrate a culture but they might be substituted by essential complexes in the case of extremely conservative, fundamentalist or anarchic cultures.