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