In my previous reflection on the pre/trans fallacy, we explored how individuals attempt to bypass the rational work of character development to seize the fruits of spiritual maturity through force. However, to truly understand the mechanics of the controlling personality—whether it be the jealous partner, the envious peer, or the tyrant—we must identify the fuel source of this behavior. At the heart of this pathology lies a profound metaphysical error, a state of mind best described as a childish entitlement to an illusion. It is the refusal of the survival-ego to submit to the structure of Reality, demanding instead that Reality reconfigure itself to flatter the survival-ego.
This entitlement rests on a corrupted logical formula. The sovereign, trans-rational individual operates on the premise of “I am, and therefore it is,” meaning their external reality is a natural radiation of their internal state of being. The controller, trapped in the pre-rational state, operates on the inverted logic of “I want, therefore I am entitled to have.” They confuse appetite with authority. In this infantile framework, the sensation of lack—be it hunger, loneliness, or insecurity—is interpreted not as a signal to grow or create, but as a valid claim upon the resources and validation of others. They believe their need constitutes a mortgage on someone else’s soul.
Solipsism is the metaphysical belief that only one’s own mind is certain to exist, and that the external world—including other people—may be nothing more than a projection or simulation of that consciousness. It is a state where the individual acts as if their subjective thoughts, feelings, and desires are the only reality, treating objective reality and the autonomy of others as irrelevant or unreal.
This dynamic is inherently solipsistic, mirroring the cognitive state of an infant for whom the self and the world are undifferentiated. To the infant, a desire is a command; if they hunger, the world must feed. When an adult remains arrested in this pre-rational stage, they reject the rational recognition of “otherness.” They cannot conceive of other people as sovereign agents with their own rights and wills. Instead, others are reduced to non-player characters in a script written by the controller’s survival-ego. The jealous boyfriend does not see his partner as a free woman; he sees her as a prop required to maintain his internal narrative of security and dominance.
The specific tragedy of this condition is that the controller is attempting to maintain a state of non-contradiction through the use of manipulation and force. They wish to view themselves as “worthy,” “lovable,” or “righteous” (State A) while simultaneously acting in ways that are “unworthy,” “unloving,” and “unrighteous” (State Non-A). Logocentric philosophy teaches us that A cannot be Non-A; contradictions cannot exist in nature. Therefore, the controller is engaged in a war against the Logos itself. They are attempting to live a lie. Because this lie cannot be sustained by Truth, it requires constant external reinforcement through manipulation and force to keep it from collapsing.
This is why the entitlement to the illusion inevitably turns “vampiric.” Since the illusion has no connection to the Source of Life—the Truth—it has no internal power supply. It is a dead thing that must be animated by the stolen energy of the living. The controlling individual demands that those around them “feed” the illusion of non-contradiction. They require their victims to reflect back a false image of the controller’s grandeur or victimhood. If the victim acts autonomously—if they speak the truth or assert their own boundaries—they shatter the mirror. To the controller, this is an existential threat; the destruction of the illusion feels like the death of the self.
Aggression, then, becomes the necessary tool for maintaining this fragile existence. Reason is the enemy of the illusion because reason detects contradictions. If the controller were to engage in honest, rational discourse, their entitlement would be exposed as baseless and their actions as immoral. Therefore, they must bypass the rational mind entirely. They utilize anger, manipulation, and force to silence the Logos. Aggression is the desperate attempt to force the external world to apologize for the internal lack of the aggressor. It is the demand that A become Non-A by the point of a sword.
We can see this clearly in the archetype of Cain. Cain’s entitlement was the belief that he deserved the status of the “favored one” without the substance of the “righteous one.” His aggression toward Abel was not just about eliminating a rival; it was about destroying the standard of comparison that made his illusion impossible to sustain. As long as Abel existed, Cain could not pretend that his mediocre offering was the best possible sacrifice. By killing Abel, Cain attempted to force God—Reality itself—to grade on a curve. He wanted to secure a value he did not create and did not earn, proving that aggression is always the thief of merit.
Ultimately, this behavior reveals the difference between the “Two Games” of Wanting and Having. The controller is stuck in the game of Wanting, believing that if they can just capture enough external resources, they will finally feel whole. But because they are trying to fill a spiritual void with physical control, they remain perpetually empty. They are trying to pour water into a bucket with no bottom. True “Having” is a state of generation, not extraction. It is the solar dynamic of the Creator, who gives light not because he wants a return, but because he is the light.
The only escape from this pre/trans trap is the abandonment of entitlement and the embrace of the rational/ethical stage of development. We must submit to the foundational laws of logic: the Law of Identity, admitting that we are exactly who our actions prove us to be, and the Law of Non-Contradiction, acknowledging that we cannot simultaneously be “good” while acting out a lie. We must cease the attempt to force the world to validate our illusions and begin the hard work of aligning our character with the Truth. We must move from the poverty of “I want, therefore I take” to the sovereignty of “I am, therefore I create.” Only then do we lay down the weapons of control and take up the mantle of true power.
Did you enjoy the article? Show your appreciation and buy me a coffee:
Bitcoin: bc1qmevs7evjxx2f3asapytt8jv8vt0et5q0tkct32
Doge: DBLkU7R4fd9VsMKimi7X8EtMnDJPUdnWrZ
XRP: r4pwVyTu2UwpcM7ZXavt98AgFXRLre52aj
MATIC: 0xEf62e7C4Eaf72504de70f28CDf43D1b382c8263F
THE UNITY PROCESS: I’ve created an integrative methodology called the Unity Process, which combines the philosophy of Natural Law, the Trivium Method, Socratic Questioning, Jungian shadow work, and Meridian Tapping—into an easy to use system that allows people to process their emotional upsets, work through trauma, correct poor thinking, discover meaning, set healthy boundaries, refine their viewpoints, and to achieve a positive focus. Read my philosophical treatise, “The Logocentric Christian”, to learn more about how Greek philosophy, the law of identity, the law of non-contradiction, the law of reason, and Jesus of Nazareth all connect together.
