















































International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

179 
 

 

 

THE INTRAPSYCHIC SPLITTING OF THE I AS A PATTERN OF SPLITTING, 

CONFLICT AND INTERPSYCHIC WAR WITH OTHERS 

 

Ramona ARDELEAN 

Politehnica University of Bucharest 

 

 

Abstract 

In this article, I tried to argue the fact that the internal splitting, respectively the intrapsychic 

conflict of our I represents the psychological pattern of the external splitting, respectively the 

interpsychic or social conflict, being therefore about the splitting/conflict of the I first with 

oneself, and then with others. I have thus shown, bringing arguments from the sphere of 

Christian theology and Lacanian psychoanalysis, that this very intra- and interpsychic splitting 

of the I is at the basis of the internal/psychological and external/social conflict, the I being 

considered for this reason the prototype par excellence of the division, the scission and the 

conflict at the psychological and social level. And this because the quintessence of the I seems 

to be, both from a theological-Christian perspective and from a psychoanalytical one, the 

narcissism. Thus, if from the point of view of Christian theology, I interpreted the narcissistic 

I as being both the cause and the effect of the "fall" or "original sin", from the psychoanalytic 

point of view, as Jaques Lacan highlighted in his famous the "mirror stage", the narcissistic I 

is constituted by doubling in the imaginary or illusory mirror of reality. I have also shown that 

the main ignorance of the narcissistic I consists in identifying the mind with an external image, 

that is, in attaching or falling in love with one's own mental images which confuses them with 

reality. It is more precisely about the primary/intrapsychic identification of the I with its own 

image (from the mirror) - the pattern on which the secondary or interpsychic identifications 

with different mental images will later be grafted. It is these identifications with different 

images, ideas, beliefs, ideals and mental symbols, by virtue of being considered as belonging 

to the sphere of  the"I", that will generate scission, rivalry, competition, conflict and war 

between people. Therefore, only the full awareness of this narcissistic-aggressive-conflict 

pattern of the I could free us from its tyranny, basically responsible for all conflicts and wars 

between people. 

 

Keywords: the I, intra-interpsychic splitting, conflict, identification, mental image, mirror 

stage, narcissism, original sin 

 

 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

180 
 

1. The intrapsychic splitting as a pathological state of the I or "fallen" human being’s 

condition 

The human history is often written in the red ink of the bloody conflicts and wars that have 

crossed it. The most recent war, that of Russia against Ukraine, circumscribes the same 

pathological mechanism of conflict and war, as old as the world, that is, the same disease from 

which humanity has suffered and is still suffering. But what disease is it? Dostoevsky, a name 

already included in the cultural heritage, both Russian and universal, shows in Notes from 

Underground that the main characteristic of this disease is the state of conflict or war, 

"perpetual – from the days of the Flood. [...] Put it to the test and cast your eyes upon the history 

of mankind. What will you see? [...] People fight and fight; they are fighting now, they fought 

first and they fought last. [...] In short, one may say anything about the history of the world - 

anything that might enter the most disordered imagination" (Dostoevsky, 2003, pp. 27-28). 

Let us remember from here the expression "disordered imagination", common to the condition 

of the "fallen" human being, which accounts for the pathology of the human’s I, whose "attack", 

according to  Christian tradition, on divine creation or harmony, led to its expulsion and "fall" 

from paradise. The story of human's "fall", equivalent to original sin, through wich the human 

being succumbed to the temptation of the devil to be like God, thus attests, from the very 

beginning, the presence, in germ, of an "I" that was "activated" as soon as the devil instilled in 

him the desire to be like God (See Ardelean, 2019, p. 29). Thus, Jean-Claude Larchet points 

out, the original sin consisted for human being, as for the devil, in self-deification, in claiming 

for oneself an absolute autonomy and in the will to dispense oneself from God; in seeking a 

glory for oneself alone, making one's own "I" an absolute centre (See Larchet, 2001, p. 211). 

It is interesting to observe that the I seems to play a similar role in this story of the "fall" as 

Lucifer. As we know, Lucifer, the heavenly angel created by God perfect in wisdom and 

beauty, was the first angel to "attack" divine unity, coming in pride, glory and self-love, 

synonymous with narcissism, to rebel against God in an attempt to become his own god. This 

led to the first split and "fall" of the angels in heaven, resulting in the transformation of Lucifer 

into Satan who, then tempting the human being, by instilling the desire to be god, ignited in it 

the spark of the illusory omnipotence of the I, resulting in the second split and "fall" - the "fall" 

of the human being. For this reason, the I can even be considered the demonic prototype of the 

splitting, division or separation from the divine unity. (See Ardelean, 2019, p. 30). 

According to the Christian tradition, the human creature thus becomes a "fallen" being, his 

"fall" being the result of the devil's temptation, which actually introduces the first split in the 

human being - the internal or intrapsychic split. It is useful to recall in this regard that the very 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

181 
 

etymology of the word devil, coming from the Greek word diabolos (διάβολος), which means 

to divide, to split, to break ties with the whole, with unity, with God, shows the devil's favourite 

tool, that of division or splitting, whose maxim, "Divide et impera", reveals the very specifics 

of his mode of operation. The one that corrupted the human being, making it "fall" prey to the 

first division and, implicitly, to the first conflict, intrapsychic or psychological 

division/conflict, as a model of interpsychic or social division/conflict, based on competition, 

rivalry, aggression and war with others. This internal division/conflict will become, as I will 

show, the premise of the external division/conflict, the external division/conflict being only the 

"mirror" of the internal division/conflict. In the sense of this split, we can also better understand 

the meaning of the proverbial saying "the devil’s got his tail" - with which he invented the 

ancestral method, that of the division or splitting - the eternal "apple of discord" and conflict 

between people, both on a psychological, intrasubjective level, as well as at the social, 

intersubjective level. 

Indeed, the oldest and most striking psychological/intrapsychological split, as perceived by the 

Holy Fathers, and the most striking conflict is that between the mind (intellect, reason) and the 

heart (feeling). If in the state of original unity the mind was united with the heart, the mind 

being for this reason contemplative, circular, describing a movement within the heart and 

designating the "inner human being" or "the ontological centre of human being and the source 

of all his powers" (See Larchet, 2001, p. 211), subsequently, by splitting the mind from the 

heart, the mind goes outside, describing a rectilinear trajectory that "cuts" or splits reality. 

Dionysius The Areopagite speaks of the three movements of the soul: circular movement, 

spiral movement and straight line movement. The circular movement of the soul, 

corresponding to the movement of the divine mind, is the unitary, intuitive or contemplative 

movement, the movement of turning inwards from the multiplicity of what is outside, or the 

movement of unification "to the beginningless and endless illuminations of the Beautiful and 

Good" (Dionysius The Areopagite, 1972, p. 98). The spiral movement of the soul is when the 

soul is "enlightened with truths of Divine Knowledge, not in the special unity of its being but 

by the process of its discursive reason" (Dionysius The Areopagite, 1972, p. 99). Finally, the 

straight-line movement occurs when the soul no longer turns inward or retreats inward, 

allowing itself to be totally absorbed by the multiple and changing outside (See Dionysius The 

Areopagite, 1972, p. 99). Thus, only the contemplative movement seems to be the natural 

movement of the soul, the other two movements being nothing but deviations contrary to the 

nature of the soul, acting outside. Only when the soul's movement is contemplative in nature, 

according to its nature, does the mind have a circular movement; it remains within the heart 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

182 
 

and does not spread outside. Leaving the contemplative work and not having a circular 

movement, but one in a straight line, the mind goes out of the heart, therefore out of the spiritual 

centre of the human being, and spreads outwards, in a discursive activity in which it dissipates 

and divides, taking the human being outside of itself and outside of God (See Larchet, 2001, 

pp 46-47). 

The splitting of the mind from the heart will institute the great spiritual schizophrenia, in the 

etymological sense of the word, for schizophrenia comes from the Greek words skhizo, ein - to 

split, to divide - and phren - spirit, thus dividing the human being at the level of the whole 

spirit, made up of mind and heart. This split between mind and heart will then transfer and split 

all the faculties of the human being. Thus, following the mind, divided by the multitude of 

thoughts and sensations which it receives, all the other faculties of the human being, harassed 

and confused by the multitude of passions, are driven, in a contradictory manner, in all 

directions, making the human being one divided at all its levels (See Larchet, 2001, p. 47). 

This split at the intrapsychic level is the very psychological "I" of the human being, that is, its 

conflicting, split, divided or "fallen" consciousness. Given that the I (split consciousness) is 

diveded at all its psychological levels, it is not surprising then that all these parts, pieces or 

fragments, precisely by virtue of being split, will come into conflict, in opposition to each other, 

generating and maintaining the internal/psychological conflict of the I. This internal conflict 

of the I, first of all with itself, i.e. a psychological or intrapsychic conflict, will then move 

outwards, generating the social or interpsychic/intersubjective conflict, i.e. the conflict with 

the others, as a so-called "evolutionary" pattern of human society. The quintessence of this 

internal and external, intra- and interpsychic conflict is our I/Ego, the prototype par excellence 

of division, scission and conflict at the psychological and social level (See Ardelean, 2019, p. 

40). 

 

2. The intrapsychic splitting of the I from the "mirror stage"     

We can better understand the mechanism of our I’s intrapsychic split and conflict using a  

psychoanalytic interpretation key, which highlights the ambivalent-conflictual or narcissistic-

aggressive structure of the I, duplicated in the imaginary mirror of reality. Particularly relevant 

in this context of imaginary doubling or splitting by means of an image is "the mirror stage", 

the most important psychoanalytic contribution of the French Jacques Lacan regarding the 

stage of the constitution of the I.  



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

183 
 

Considered the reference point of the entire Lacanian work, the mirror stage1 (stade du miroir) 

represents a solid and scientific argument regarding the deconstruction of the I's claims to 

knowledge, through which Lacan reveals its imaginary or illusory structure, that structure of 

human subjectivity, called by him "the paradigm of the imaginary order", in which "the subject 

is permanently caught and captivated by its own image" (Evans, 2006, p. 118). 

Who does not recognize himself in the myth of Narcissus, the one who falls in love with his 

own image? It is enough, it seems, to see yourself once to be blinded and hypnotized by one’s 

own mirror image which, by imprisoning oneself in the shell of an alien identity, is the cause 

of the imaginary alienation/splitting in the mirror. The mirror stage therefore refers to the drama 

of Narcissus, more precisely, to Narcissus' dual, conflictual relationship with his own image. 

But what duality, conflict or split is this really about? 

Lacan refers here to the conflict between the child's motor and visual system. Given that the 

child’s visual system is more advanced than the motor one, this allows the child to see his 

image in the mirror as a whole, as gestalt, before reaching control of body movements. From 

here follows a contrast between the incoordination of the body, experienced as a fragmentary 

body, and his own image, seen as a whole. This contrast then creates a duality, a cleavage, a 

split and dialectic tension between subject and image, tension which is solved by identifying 

the subject with the image (See Lacan, 2002, p. 76). 

This split between the specular image, which reflects the body as unity, wholeness, 

coordination, and the bodily reality, in which there is no such unity, wholeness and 

coordination of bodily movements, will be dramatically and aggressively felt, underlying the 

first form of split between image and reality. In other words, the cleavage between the 

imaginary, as a unitary image of the body, and reality, as fragmentation, uncoordination of 

bodily movements, will generate for the first time the conflict between the imaginary, between 

what should be (the ideal I), and reality, what is, the I being the result of this cleavage and 

conflict, solved by the identification with the reflected image (See Ardelean, 2019, p. 120). The 

constitution of the I takes place, therefore, through the process of identification with one’s own 

reflected image (image spéculaire), moment described by Lacan as being one of gleefulness, 

in the sense that the child’s joy is owed to his imaginary triumph in anticipating a degree of 

muscular coordination which he has not yet reached in reality (See Lacan, 1988, p. 79). 

Thus, the temptation of doubling in the imaginary and external mirror has for Lacan a negative 

character because of the hypnotizing and captivating effect of the reflected image. This primary 

 
1 See Jacques Lacan, „The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I function as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience”, în 
Écrits:The First Complete Edition in English, 2002, pp.75-82. 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

184 
 

identification with the reflected image will become the narcissistic image of the ideal I or the 

ideal image of the I (See Lacan, 2002, p. 79) in which the I and the reflected image form the 

prototypal dual relationship, which is fundamentally narcissistic, i.e. based on the rivalry 

structure of the subject with himself. In the mirror stage, therefore, the narcissistic image is 

formed through the primary identification of the I with its own reflected image, situated outside 

itself, this outside image being the ideal image of the I. This ideal image, never being attainable, 

precisely by virtue of being on the outside, will generate aggression, cleavage and continuous 

rivalry of the subject with itself, in an attempt to maintain narcissistic identification from the 

mirror stage (See Ardelean, 2019, p. 123) 

Narcissism, defined as “the erotic attraction to the specular image“ (Evans, 2006, p. 123) is an 

ambivalent formation, which has double character, erotic and aggressive, as it appears in the 

myth of Narcissus. The erotic characteristic is given by the attraction or the falling in love of 

the subject with the image or the gestalt. The aggressive characteristic is given by the cleavage, 

tension and conflict between the wholeness of the reflected image and the lack of motor unity 

of the subject's real body. Aggressiveness is thus constitutive of narcissism, in the sense of that 

continuous rivalry with one’s self. It is the subject’s attempt to maintain the identification 

formed in the mirror stage, when “the child sees his reflected image in the mirror as gestalt or 

unity, in contrast with the lack of coordination of the real body, contrast felt as an aggressive 

tension between the unitary reflected image and the fragmentary real body“ (Evans, 2006, p. 

6). Hence, this narcissistic identification with the reflected image implies the ambivalence of 

the erotic and aggressive elements,“erotic aggressiveness” being considered by Lacan the 

fundamental ambivalence of narcissism, which all the other forms of identification will later 

fix onto. Given this ambivalence, narcissism can easily glide from the extreme pole of self-

love to the opposite pole of self-destruction (See Evans, 2006, p. 6),  as it is found in the myth 

of Narcissus.  

The mirror stage shows, therefore, that the I is the result of a misunderstanding 

(méconnaissance), the result of not knowing, not recognizing or ignoring, whereby the subject 

is alienated in an image, placing itself outside, in the radical exteriority of the imaginary, the 

apparent and the illusory, reason for which the I cannot receive, according to Lacan, a real 

ontological status, but only an imaginary one, of illusion, appearance, delusion and illusion, 

the main illusions of the imaginary being "wholeness, synthesis, autonomy, duality and, above 

all, similarity [... ] so the order of surface appearances" (Evans, 2006, p. 84). 

The mirror stage, which reveals the imaginary structure of the I, represents the most important 

psychoanalytic contribution to the deconstruction of the I. And the constituent elements of this 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

185 
 

structure: the primary/intrapsychic identification with one's own image from the outside, as the 

origin of the secondary/interpsychic identifications with other images from the outside, through 

which the I splits and becomes the Other, instituting narcissism, as aggression, cleavage and 

rivalry with self2, highlights from a psychoanalytic point of view the internal splitting of the I 

at the primary, intrapsychic or psychological level. 

 

3. The intrapsychic/psychological splitting of the I as a pattern of the 

interpsychic/social splitting 

I will further show that this internal splitting of the I, at the primary/intrapsychic or 

psychological level, will become the pattern of the external splitting of the I, at the 

secondary/interpsychic or social level, in the form of aggression, rivalry, competition, struggle 

and conflict with others . Thus, the intrapsychic conflict, based on the primary identification 

with one's own external image, will be the pattern on which the interpsychic conflict, based on 

the secondary identifications with the series of external images, will be grafted, the intrapsychic 

conflict being therefore the basis of the social, interpsychic conflict. Given that the primary or 

narcissistic identification with one's own image (in the mirror), through which the I becomes 

the Other, constitutes, as we have seen, the prototype of the dual or conflictual relationship of 

rivalry and aggression with the self, it is then obvious that this dialectical prototype of rivalry 

and intrapsychic aggression (with oneself) will become the pattern of rivalry and interpsychic 

aggression (with others), respectively the pattern of rivalry, aggression, competition, struggle, 

conflict and war with other people. 

This internal splitting of the I, in which the pattern of (intrasubjective) rivalry with oneself 

becomes the premise of (intersubjective) rivalry with others, thus circumscribes the whole 

picture of "life as a prey", in which each "I" fights with another "I", perpetuating the same 

ancient dichotomous pattern of rivalry, aggression, splitting and conflict, characterized by the 

fierce struggle of individuals for competition, power or supremacy, in which the strong defeats 

the weak, i.e. this whole dialectic of hatred, “enmity and conflict between master and slave, 

executioner and victim, oppressor and oppressed, dominator and dominated, both at the level 

of individuals, classes or social groups, and at the level of nations, thus justifying what has 

been called evolution, horror or the history’s terror" (Ardelean, 2016, p. 61). 

We can see, therefore, how this pattern of rivalry and aggression with oneself is projected 

outwards in the form of rivalry and aggression with our fellow human beings, producing 

 
2 The I's rivalry with itself becomes, therefore, possible only if the I doubles, splits, and actually becomes the 
Other. 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

186 
 

endless struggles, conflicts and crises - psychological, social, political, economic, 

technological, ecological, cultural, spiritual, i.e. endless crimes and wars in which our actions 

divide, split and become contradictory actions or actions against ourselves, generating what 

Hobbes described so well in De Cive and Leviathan, i.e. "the war of all against all" - "bellum 

omnium contra omnes". 

Therefore, the external social structures are only the "mirror" of the internal psychological 

structures in the sense that "society is what you and I, in our relationship, have created; it is the 

outward projection of all our own inward psychological states" ( Krishnamurti, 2001, p. 16). 

Thus, society is not something abstract, but is the external projection of our internal states, 

rivalry, aggression, conflict and war at the social or interpersonal level, being only the "mirror" 

or "replica" of rivalry, aggression, conflict and war at the psychological or intrapersonal level. 

In other words, what we are, what we feel, think and do every day, projects itself outward and 

forms the world, which means that "we are each of us responsible for every war because of the 

aggressiveness of our own lives, because of our nationalism, our selfishness, our gods, our 

prejudices, our ideals, all of which divide us" (Krishnamurti, 1999, p. 9). 

Given that every human being thinks according to his prejudices, experiences, ideals, beliefs 

and convictions, to which are added the conditionings of race, nation, family, society, 

education, religion, tradition, culture and environment, it is obvious, as Krishnamurti3 pointed 

out, that the identification of the I with those images, ideas, beliefs and symbols will generate 

division, rivalry, competition, conflict and war between people, instituing the following 

divisions: "my country", "my religion", "my god", "my faith", "I am American", "I am 

Russian", "I am Christian", "I am Hindu", "I am democrat", "I am nationalist" etc. each "I am" 

violently confronting the other "I am" (See Krishnamurti, 1982, pp. 12-13). 

Thus, the essence of the I is the process of identification of the mind with an external image 

(one's own person, race, nation, family, ideology, profession, religion etc.) which moves inside 

and forms the I, this I being, as Lacan pointed out, the result of identification with an 

image/object, i.e. with an Other. We are talking here about the series of secondary/interpsychic 

identifications of the I with different mental images (ideas, beliefs, ideals and symbols), grafted 

onto the pattern of intrapsychic identification with one's own image. In other words, the I of 

 
3 Jiddhu Krishnamurti is considered one of the most authentic spiritual messengers of the contemporary world. 

He enjoyed enormous appreciation from the scientific, artistic and cultural elites of his time. The Dalai Lama did 

not hesitate to call him "one of the greatest thinkers of the 20th century", and Time Magazine, "one of the five 

saints of the 20th century". Krishnamurti also visited Romania, in December 1930, and held a famous conference, 

applauded for a long time, in the great hall of the Romanian Athenaeum, crowded by an audience made up of the 

elite of Bucharest intellectuals, led by the great diplomat Nicolae Titulescu, who after the conference declared 

that he was happy to have been able to listen to Krishnamurti. 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

187 
 

the subject identifies with a series of images, ideas and symbols, which are confused with 

reality and considered more important than it. As the quintessence of the identification process 

is the very confusion between mental image and reality, this makes the space of our mind 

conditioned by identification with different personal or collective experiences, related to 

family, race, nationality, religion, ideology etc. all these identifications leading to mind 

splitting. Identification, as I have shown, is the process by which the mind identifies itself with 

an image from outside, which moves inside, producing the I, and then "once we established a 

notion of something inward, it becomes necessary  to protect that" (Krishnamurti & D.Bohm, 

1985, p. 27) and thus struggle, conflict, splitting, separation arise.  

Nothing therefore generates more violence, aggression, segregation and conflict in the 

intersubjective space than this process of identification with different mental images. All 

people are ready to accept or tolerate each other's various shortcomings or weaknesses, but as 

soon as their mental images, that is, their political, economic, philosophical or religious ideas 

or identifications are divergent, intransigence and intolerance immediately make their presence 

felt, showing their "fangs" and instigating people to enter into competition and fight against 

each other, thus making their actions waste away in opposite and contradictory actions (See 

Ardelean, 2016, p. 25). Each individual imagines that his/her point of view is more justified, 

more "true" than another, thus expressing absolute value judgments. For this reason, human 

history is full, as we know, of such individuals who, believing that they hold the whole truth, 

were ready to wage wars, kill, torture or massacre in its name (See Ardelean, 2016, p. 25 ). The 

I of the individual thus becomes the great ideologist, tyrant, inquisitor, dictator or executioner, 

always eager to impose, dominate and subjugate, all the great ideologies and social, political, 

economic systems standing under the sign of the narcissistic aggressiveness of the I, whose 

main vice or disease lies precisely in this identification with a mental image, which becomes 

more important than reality, substituting it. 

 

4. Instead of a conclusion 

We can state therefore that this identification process of the I generates the confusion, 

contradiction, conflict and split between image (subject) and reality (object). As long as this 

identification of the I "is not understood and put an end to, we are bound to have conflict, within 

and without, in thought, in emotion, in action. No solution of any kind, however clever, 

however well thought out, can ever put an end to the conflict between man and man, between 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

188 
 

you and me" (Krishnamurti, 2001, p. 96). It is precisely because of this fact, Huxley4 points 

out, that ideas, images and symbols should never be raised to the status of dogma, and no 

system should be regarded as anything more than a provisional solution. Otherwise, belief in 

formulas, dogmas and action in accordance with them not only does not solve the problem, but, 

on the contrary, deepens, aggravates, amplifies or increases it in complexity and 

destructiveness (See Huxley, 2001, p. 5) becoming the destructive potential of conflict and war 

of any kind and from everywhere. 

In conclusion, as long as the I, through its narcissistic-aggressive structure, identifies with its 

own mental images, ideas and symbols, allowing itself to be blinded and hypnotized by them, 

ignoring that they are the product of the individual or collective mind, it will inevitably 

perpetuate and find itself in the same "fallen" condition - of division, splitting and conflict 

within and without, intra- and intersubjective, i.e. of conflict with both itself and other human 

beings. This is why only a deep understanding or awareness of this narcissistic-aggressive-

conflict pattern of the I could lead to the solution and, implicitly, to the (e)liberation from the 

tyranny of this unconscious and ancestral pattern, which is basically responsible for all the 

suffering, friction, discord, enmity, rivalry, conflict, aggression, crime and war existing in the 

world. 

 

 

References 

Ardelean, Ramona. (2016). Scandalul nedreptății. Eseuri de metafizică morală, Iași, Editura 

Fundației Academice Axis. 

Ardelean, Ramona. (2019). Eul și fragmentarea conștiinței umane. O explorare din perspectiva 

fizicii cuantice, filosofiei, teologiei și psihanalizei. Iași, Editura Universității 

„Alexandru Ioan Cuza”. 

Dionysius The Areopagite. (1972). The Divine Names and The Mystical Theology, translated 

by C.E. Rolt, London, S.P.C.K., Holy Trinity Church. 

Dostoevsky, F. M. (2003). Notes from the Underground and The Grand Inquisitor, Selection, 

translation and introduction by Ralph. E. Matlaw, New York, Plume Printing. 

Evans, Dylan. (2006). An Introductory Dictionary of Lacanian Psychoanalysis, New York-

London: Routledge. 

Krishnamurti, Jiddu. (1999). Freedom from the Known, India: Krishnamurti Foundation India 

 
4 Aldous Huxley, „Foreword”, in J. Krishnamurti, The First and Last Freedom., 2001, Krisnamurti Foundation 
India, pp. 1-9. 



International Journal of Social and Educational Innovation (IJSEIro) 

Volume 10/ Issue 19 /2023 

 

189 
 

Krishnamurti, Jiddu. (2001). The First and Last Freedom, with a Foreword by Aldous Huxley, 

India: Krishnamurti Foundation India 

Krishnamurti, Jiddu. (1982). The Network of Thought,  London: Krishnamurti Foundation 

Trust Ltd 

Krishnamurti, Jiddu & BOHM, David. 1985. The Ending of Time: Thirtheen Dialogues, 

England: Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd., England. 

Lacan, Jacques. (2002). „The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I function as Revealed in 

Psychoanalytic Experience”, in Écrits:The First Complete Edition in English, 

translated by Bruce Fink, New York-London, W.W. Norton & Company. 

Lacan, Jacques. (1988). The Seminar, Book I, Freud’s Paper on Technique, translated by John 

Forrester, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 

Larchet, Jean-Claude. (2001). Terapeutica bolilor spirituale, translated by Marinela Bojin, 

București, Editura Sophia. 

 


