How to use the dictionary searching psychology

Every existing dictionary gives an explanation of the conventional meaning of a specific term. The convention is usually determined by:

1) current use;
2) the decision of a group, of a fact, of a people, of an initiator;
3) the historical-linguistic origin of one’s own or another’s linguistics.

Though I consider this procedure valid and define it as the culture of the linguistic etymon, I do not feel it is sufficient when one investigates to carry out science on the existential processes that cause human reality.
In particular, from the time that analytical introspection on the mental processes in the great science of present-day psychology started, a large inadequacy between sign and fact, between image and content, between word and intention, can be seen. By ‘great psychology’ I mean the analytical- synthetic aptitude searching into the basic processes of intelligence when it structures its own humanistic universe: man as protagonist in the world where it occurs.
Today, in fact, current psychology does not have a dictionary that represents the basic episteme of sense. My culture, and in particular my ontopsychological experience, have given me evidence between linguistic use and the meaning of the intentionality of nature. A person speaks and uses images, which, though they are codified by traditions and historical structures, do not coincide with the socio-biological interactions of existence.
While the known logical-linguistic system can work for several patterns of behaviour such as thejuridical, the political, economic, historical, mathematical one, etc., it is seen to be entirely unsuitable when psychological science is formed: it lacks the ontic relation, thus the functional rationality.
Psychology, which is science on the logos or topics of the psyche, cannot exist if it lacks the meanings objectifying its research. So long as psychology investigates with systems founded on apparent consciousness or on stereotypes of common linguistics, it will be able to dialogue, but it will not be able to observe the intentioning res in the phenomenology.
The interpretation of dreams, not yet exact when facts and symptoms in the different psychological (or psychoanalytical) schools are compared, is the demonstration of the linguistic dichotomy between nature and culture, between organismic intention and conscious rational image. Not to mention the unfailing persistence of symptoms that therefore go against many psychological theories.

In Ontopsychology a congruous correlation between organismic and conscious reflection is known. This is due to the fact that Ontopsychology has understood the order of meaning that forms the codes of existential interaction.
Science is such if the word conveys a form of quantum of action.
The task of my work hypothesis on the hundred or more epistemological words of psychology, is the recovery or re-organization of the quantum of sense and of action that presents itself within the conveyer (word, or gesture or sign of the living operator).
I will set this task through two criteria.

1) The linguistic etymon of a root common to the two mother tongues of the Italian language.

This language has a good history and possesses sufficiently superior and rationally evolved syncretistic orders. The Italian language springs from two great mothers of the civilisation of the sign: the Greek and the Roman civilisation. So I will trace the root of every word I define with an essential reference, which begins the specification of a mode of existential action.
Since the fathers of our language (Greek-Latin) fashioned the sign on ontic emotion, I consider that
creating this dictionary also on the linguistic etymon is the same thing as authenticating the sign on the living act.

2) The experience of the mediation between the existential ontic and verbal consciousness.

By ‘verbal consciousness’ I mean the entire complex process of configuration and identification which we experience as definite images: form, image, word, thought, fantasy.
By ‘existential ontic’ or reflection I mean the entire process that is formed in the individual in the interaction between being and time in worldly space, between individuation and environment, between personal organism and one’s surroundings.
The processes of this interaction between the Self and others, constitute the infinite variable of energy interaction through which the subject, in accordance with his individual thematic selection, lives, becomes and changes either wholly or in a single part as far as his entire psychic field is concerned.
Psychic, in man, is everything that acts and changes form while remaining distinct and different from its own effects or precipitates (chemical, physical, electric, thermic, magnetic). The soul or the In Sé, or the intellect, or the mind, is unity of action in a universe of pure causality, which in advance of all its precipitates is specified as intentional energy: it gives the drive that makes things happen. It can not bedepicted in any way, and yet it is known through a haecceity of presence. It is evidence without image.
Through the observation and the understanding of the semantic field I have been able to measure and identify many of the metabolisms that alter the organismic constant (the entire psycho-organics) of the subject. Thus, one has the rational possibility ofrecognising, distinguishing and measuring in reality all those innovative drives of the nucleus (or unconscious) of the subject being examined. Hence a particular emotion, an instinctive or environmental drive, can be recognised and foreseen in its subsequent development (in what time and in what place) long before its externalised expression in gesture or behaviour, in word and in way of thinking. It is objective consciousness open to anyone who can bring his own Iso and subsequent variants to consciousness.
With this knowledge of the semantic field – conditio sine qua non for Ontopsychology - the entire journey from the sign to the cause and vice versa can be travelled. Hence this knowledge is certain and is entitled in that it highlights the reversibility between sign and reality. The continuous clinical experience by operators working with the ontopsychological method and my personal clinical experience prove the causal connection of reversibility: that sign bears reality and the reality bears that sign.

The method of my interpretation is a continuous paraphrasing of the action in all its modes and
relations. The constant is always action, in which man and object, in their intrinsic and reciprocal modes, are the elementary phenomenology. Who acts, how it acts, what it produces, is the ultimatestructure of any existential logos, and, consequently, of any form of sign.
All of this becomes clear in that Ontopsychology has specified the prime and elementary criterion of one’s own autoctisis: the ontic In Sé.