Open Autonomous Intelligence Initiative

Overview & Motivation

Clinical practice within the Holistic Unity framework focuses on restoring harmony across psychological axes when polarity expression becomes rigid, suppressed, or chronically misaligned with context. UPA provides a generative lens through which clinical phenomena can be understood, assessed, and transformed—shifting emphasis from symptom classification to axis-level regulation, contextual attunement, and recursive integration.

Holistic Unity conceptualizes suffering not as categorical disorder but as disharmonious polarity that disrupts adaptive functioning. Therapeutic work, therefore, centers on expanding access to both poles of key axes (e.g., autonomy–belonging), increasing contextual flexibility, and fostering the recursive integration of emerging patterns. This framework accommodates diverse therapeutic modalities while grounding them in a shared structural foundation.

Clinical Foundations: Polarity and Harmony

Clinical foundations in Holistic Unity begin with the recognition that psychological suffering emerges when the dynamic balance across polarity axes becomes constrained, distorted, or misaligned with context. Unlike models that locate pathology in isolated symptoms or fixed diagnostic categories, UPA understands distress as arising from structural tension within σ-pairs (A2–A5) and from the system’s diminished ability to modulate expression in response to changing circumstances.

Core Clinical Assumptions

The foundational clinical assumptions derived from UPA include:

1. Unity as Ground (A1): Individuals are fundamentally coherent systems; disharmony reflects disruption of this coherence, not fragmentation of self.
2. Generative Polarity (A2–A3): All psychological life unfolds along axes whose poles are mutually implicative; neither can be eliminated nor made absolute without cost.
3. Co-definition (A5): Poles derive identity through relation; clinical work must therefore address relational patterns rather than isolated traits.
4. Contextual Modulation (A7): Context exerts active influence; difficulties often reflect misalignment between polarity expression and environmental demands.
5. Harmony as Viability (A15): Adaptive functioning requires dynamic balance; chronic imbalance produces vulnerability or distress.

Polarity as Clinical Lens

Polarity provides a unifying grammar for clinical observation. Symptoms, defenses, and coping strategies can be understood as attempts—successful or not—to regulate tension along core axes (e.g., autonomy–belonging). Overidentification with one pole may manifest as rigidity; oscillation between poles may reflect instability. Clinical inquiry therefore focuses on how individuals orient along axes, how flexibly they shift, and how they interpret contextual cues.

Harmony as Therapeutic Aim

Harmony (A15) articulates the core therapeutic goal: cultivating fluid, contextually appropriate movement along axes. Rather than restoring a single preferred state, therapy expands the client’s repertoire of viable configurations, fostering integrated access to both poles. Harmony allows dynamic adaptation, reducing suffering and enhancing agency.

Recursive Integration and Growth

Developmental growth reflects the recursive integration of new polarity expressions (A11). Clinical work supports this process by helping clients integrate emerging experiences, reorganize maladaptive patterns, and incorporate new contexts. Integration promotes flexibility, enabling individuals to respond creatively to complexity rather than defaulting to habitual defenses.

Multi-Axis Coherence

Clinical functioning depends on coherent coordination across multiple axes (A12). Misalignment—such as strong agency with weak self–world boundaries—can create systemic vulnerability. Therapy therefore attends to whole-system patterns, supporting alignment across domains (e.g., affect–cognition, autonomy–belonging) rather than focusing on isolated symptoms.

The Role of Therapeutic Relationship

The therapeutic relationship offers a live context in which polarity can be explored and rebalanced. Through collaborative engagement, clients practice flexible movement between poles: autonomy and receptivity, self and other, expression and reflection. This relational field becomes a microcosm for re-harmonization, fostering safety for experimentation and integration

Assessment Through Axis Mapping

Assessment in Holistic Unity centers on mapping how clients express and regulate polarity across key psychological axes. Rather than cataloging symptoms, the clinician seeks to understand where polarity is balanced, where it is biased, and where contextual responsiveness is impaired. Axis mapping thus provides a structural portrait of functioning, highlighting patterns that might otherwise be obscured by categorical diagnoses.

Purpose of Axis Mapping

Axis mapping aims to:

1. Identify characteristic polarity orientations (e.g., agency > receptivity).
2. Assess flexibility—how readily clients can move along axes.
3. Evaluate contextual attunement—whether expressions shift appropriately.
4. Determine multi-axis coherence—how axes interact.
5. Highlight sites of disharmony that require therapeutic focus.

Core Axes for Clinical Assessment

While assessment can be tailored, several axes recur across presentations:

• Agency ↔ Receptivity
• Autonomy ↔ Belonging
• Novelty ↔ Stability
• Self ↔ World
• Affect ↔ Cognition
• Structure ↔ Flexibility

These axes reflect σ-pairs fundamental to psychological life; specific problems often cluster around imbalances or rigidity within them.

Methods of Polarity Assessment

Assessment proceeds through multiple channels:

• Clinical interview: Mapping narratives of polarity (e.g., autonomy struggles).
• Behavioral observation: Identifying habitual pole preference.
• Affective tone: Evaluating emotional stance relative to contexts.
• Cognitive framing: Observing interpretive bias toward poles.
• Interpersonal patterns: Tracking how polarity emerges relationally.
• Self-report measures: Structured inventories adapted to UPA.

The goal is not to score traits but to reveal dynamic regulation patterns.

Flexibility and Contextual Fit

Two key metrics guide clinical formulation:

1. Flexibility: Can the client shift expression when context changes?
2. Contextual fit: Is expression appropriate to present conditions?

Patterns of rigidity signal vulnerability; contextual mismatch suggests misattunement. Assessment highlights where intervention may restore harmony.

Multi-Axis Integration

Axis mapping considers how tensions interact. For instance, strong agency with low belonging may produce relational conflict; dominance of novelty with weak structure may lead to chaotic behavior. Understanding these interactions helps identify underlying drivers and avoid symptom-level reactivity.

Visualizing Axis Profiles

Axis profiles can be visualized using:

Bipolar sliders indicating preferred poles

Spider charts showing multi-axis balance

Temporal maps capturing context sensitivity over time

Such representations help clients recognize patterns and track change.

Assessment as Collaborative Inquiry

Axis mapping is a co-constructed process. Client insight informs axis identification, while shared reflection fosters agency and self-understanding. Collaboration strengthens the therapeutic alliance and promotes openness to re-harmonization.

Diagnosis Reframed: Transdiagnostic Patterns

Diagnosis in Holistic Unity shifts from categorical labeling toward identifying shared generative patterns of polarity dysregulation. Rather than presuming that disorders are distinct entities, UPA treats symptom clusters as secondary expressions of underlying tension along core axes. This transdiagnostic lens clarifies why different conditions often overlap, why individuals move across categories over time, and why similar interventions can support diverse presentations.

From Categories to Patterns

Traditional diagnostic systems (e.g., DSM, ICD) group symptoms into discrete categories. While clinically useful, these categories can obscure deeper structure. UPA reframes diagnosis by focusing on axis-level disruptions—such as excessive agency or impaired novelty—that drive multiple symptomatic outcomes. Diagnosis thus becomes an inquiry into how polarity is organized and regulated, not whether specific criteria are met.

Core Transdiagnostic Axes

Certain axes recur across presentations:

• Security ↔ Exploration: anxiety reflects overactivation of security; avoidance suppresses exploration.
• Agency ↔ Receptivity: depression may reflect diminished agency; manic states overemphasize agency.
• Autonomy ↔ Belonging: relational distress often reflects imbalance across this axis.
• Self ↔ World: psychosis may reflect breakdown in this polarity.

These axes provide a generative map for understanding diverse presentations.

Symptom Clusters as Polarity Expressions

Symptoms and defenses express attempts to regulate tension along axes:

• Avoidance: suppresses exploration in favor of security.
• Rumination: overreliance on cognition relative to affect.
• Substance use: dysregulated attempts at affective modulation.
• Perfectionism: rigid structure at the cost of flexibility.

Understanding these expressions clarifies function and informs intervention.

Overlap and Fluidity

Because polarity structures underlie multiple presentations, individuals may meet criteria for multiple diagnoses or shift diagnoses over time. UPA normalizes this fluidity: movement across categories reflects evolving attempts to restore harmony, not diagnostic complexity.

Transdiagnostic Intervention Targets

UPA highlights targets common across conditions:

• Expand access to underexpressed poles.
• Increase contextual flexibility.
• Strengthen multi-axis coherence.
• Support recursive integration.
• Foster harmony across domains.

These targets can be tailored regardless of category, supporting personalized care.

Diagnosis as Dynamic Formulation

Diagnosis becomes a dynamic formulation—a map of polarity, context, and integration. It evolves with the client, reflecting shifts in axis balance and relational patterns. This stance promotes curiosity, personalization, and collaboration, enhancing the therapeutic process.

Therapeutic Process & Polarity Work

Polarity work structures the therapeutic process around expanding access to underexpressed poles, increasing contextual flexibility, and strengthening recursive integration. Below is an illustrative treatment plan demonstrating how polarity-informed intervention unfolds in practice.

Example Treatment Plan

Client Focus: Maya (from IV.9a) — dominance of belonging/receptivity; diminished autonomy/agency; low exploration.

1) Establish Safety & Collaborative Frame (Weeks 1–3)

Build secure therapeutic alliance emphasizing co-regulation.

Validate existing polarity configuration as adaptive in earlier contexts.

Provide UPA psychoeducation: introduce axes + harmony as dynamic balance.

Begin reflective inquiry: map current axis expression + context triggers.

Goals: Safety; shared language; curiosity about polarity.

2) Axis Awareness & Micro-Tracking (Weeks 4–6)

Use daily polarity logs to notice shifts in autonomy–belonging, agency–receptivity, security–exploration.

Identify bodily, emotional, and cognitive cues marking axis activation.

Introduce contextual inquiry: “What is the context asking for?”

Goals: Awareness of patterns; identify overused/underused poles.

3) Expanding Underexpressed Poles (Weeks 7–12)

Behavioral experiments that recruit autonomy/agency (e.g., assertive request; small independent project).

Imaginal practice: rehearse polarity shifts in session.

Emotion work: identify fears associated with autonomy; cultivate affect tolerance.

Narrative reframing: reinterpret autonomy as complement—not threat—to belonging.

Goals: Increase access to autonomy + agency in low‑risk contexts.

4) Contextual Flexibility Training (Weeks 13–18)

Scenario mapping: evaluate different contexts and “fit” of polarity sets.

Role practice: switching poles based on contextual cues.

Relational experiments outside session: balanced autonomy in valued relationships.

Reflective integration: consolidate successes + challenges.

Goals: Improve context‑appropriate shifting; reduce rigidity.

5) Multi‑Axis Integration (Weeks 19–26)

Link autonomy–belonging to novelty–stability + affect–cognition axes.

Support formation of cohesive identity that integrates both poles.

Introduce recursive reflection: track how new experiences reshape patterns.

Goals: System‑level alignment; recursive consolidation.

6) Relapse Prevention & Harmony Practice (Weeks 27–32)

Develop personal polarity profile + triggers.

Plan adaptive responses for likely stressors.

Foster ongoing reflective practices (journaling, contextual scanning).

Emphasize harmony as ongoing dynamic process.

Goals: Maintain flexibility; prepare for context shifts.

Markers of Progress

Increased access to underused poles (autonomy, agency).

Reduced avoidance of novelty; more exploration.

Greater context sensitivity.

Expanded affect awareness + regulation.

Improved relational balance.

Enhanced multi‑axis coherence.

Common Challenges

Fear of disapproval when expressing autonomy.

Overcorrection (e.g., excessive agency) before stabilizing balance.

Difficulty sustaining new patterns without strong support.

Therapeutic polarity work proceeds iteratively, supporting clients in cultivating a more harmonious, flexible, and context‑responsive configuration across axes. This example provides one instantiation; plans can be adapted to other polarity profiles (e.g., agency‑dominant; oscillating)

Example Treatment Plan — Evan (Autonomy/Agency Dominant)

Client Focus: Evan (from IV.9b) — dominance of autonomy/agency; diminished belonging/receptivity; affect minimization.

1) Establish Collaborative Accountability (Weeks 1–3)

Frame treatment as co‑leadership to respect autonomy while encouraging receptivity.

Highlight strengths of agency and initiative.

Introduce UPA psychoeducation focusing on complementary function of belonging/receptivity.

Begin mapping interpersonal contexts that evoke rigidity.

Goals: Alliance leveraging agency; curiosity about relational polarity.

2) Axis Recognition & Impact Mapping (Weeks 4–6)

Track situations where agency is overapplied; note relational consequences.

Encourage awareness of internal signals indicating need for receptivity.

Explore narratives reinforcing “self‑sufficiency at all costs.”

Goals: Increase recognition of imbalance + relational costs.

3) Expanding Underexpressed Poles (Weeks 7–14)

Behavioral practice: structured invitations to accept support; collaborative tasks.

Affect work: identify, label, and tolerate emotional states.

Receptivity drills: reflective listening exercises; feedback integration.

Narrative reframing: belonging as strength that enhances—not diminishes—autonomy.

Goals: Increase access to belonging + receptivity; improve affect literacy.

4) Contextual Modulation Training (Weeks 15–20)

Role practice: shifting from leading to joining when context warrants.

Analyze interpersonal contexts: distinguish when autonomy or receptivity is adaptive.

Experiment with balanced collaboration in work + personal settings.

Reflect on outcomes to reinforce contextual sensitivity.

Goals: Context‑appropriate polarity expression.

5) Multi‑Axis Integration (Weeks 21–28)

Link autonomy–belonging with affect–cognition + novelty–stability axes.

Support continued development of collaborative identity.

Foster recursive reflection to integrate experience.

Goals: System‑level coordination; identity coherence.

6) Relapse Prevention & Harmony Maintenance (Weeks 29–36)

Develop personalized indicators of relational imbalance.

Plan strategies to re‑engage receptivity + belonging during stress.

Establish reflective rituals (e.g., weekly polarity review).

Emphasize harmony as ongoing dynamic process.

Goals: Sustain flexibility; anticipate relational stressors.

Markers of Progress Markers of Progress

Increased access to underused poles (autonomy, agency).

Reduced avoidance of novelty; more exploration.

Greater context sensitivity.

Expanded affect awareness + regulation.

Improved relational balance.

Enhanced multi‑axis coherence.

Common Challenges

Fear of disapproval when expressing autonomy.

Overcorrection (e.g., excessive agency) before stabilizing balance.

Difficulty sustaining new patterns without strong support.

Therapeutic polarity work proceeds iteratively, supporting clients in cultivating a more harmonious, flexible, and context‑responsive configuration across axes. This example provides one instantiation; plans can be adapted to other polarity profiles (e.g., agency‑dominant; oscillating).

Contextual Modulation in Treatment

Contextual modulation (A7) is central to polarity-informed psychotherapy. Whereas many treatment models emphasize internal change independent of setting, Holistic Unity asserts that context is an active operator which shapes, affords, and constrains viable axis expressions. Treatment therefore aims to enhance the client’s capacity to perceive contextual cues accurately and to adjust polarity expression accordingly.

Context as Active Operator

Context is not a passive backdrop; it participates in psychological life by modulating polarity. A configuration that is adaptive in one setting (e.g., strong autonomy at work) may be maladaptive in another (e.g., family environments requiring receptivity). Therapeutic work highlights how context invites, amplifies, or restricts specific poles, helping clients recognize this interplay and develop adaptive responses.

Reading Contextual Cues

Many clients exhibit polarity dysregulation not because they lack access to both poles, but because they struggle to read contextual cues. Interventions cultivate:

Situational awareness (“What is happening here?”)

Social attunement (“What is being asked of me?”)

Embodied monitoring (“What is my system signaling?”)

This awareness supports timely and appropriate expression of both poles.

Contextual Fit and Misfit

Clinical distress often emerges from contextual misfit—when habitual polarity expression is poorly matched to situational demands. Examples include:

Excessive agency in collaborative settings → interpersonal conflict.

Excessive receptivity in competitive environments → underperformance.

Novelty-seeking in high-risk conditions → instability.

Treatment therefore addresses not only internal dynamics but also the environments in which clients act.

Skills for Contextual Shifting

Contextual shifting requires the ability to:

Sense: Perceive contextual affordances/constraints.

Discern: Identify which pole(s) are adaptive.

Act: Execute aligned polarity expression.

Reflect: Integrate outcomes to refine future judgment.

Practice may include role play, scenario analysis, and in vivo assignments to strengthen these skills.

Working With Context Selection

Sometimes the most adaptive intervention is context adjustment—helping clients shift environments so that their polarity profile can function harmoniously. This may involve modifying relational patterns, changing work roles, or cultivating supportive networks. Context selection becomes therapeutic when re-harmonization requires environments that encourage balanced polarity.

Contextual Modulation Across Axes

Context influences multiple axes simultaneously. For example, a new job may increase novelty demands (novelty–stability) while requiring collaboration (autonomy–belonging). Therapy helps clients track how contexts shift multi-axis configurations and how to respond coherently.

Examples by Polarity Pattern

Maya (belonging/receptivity dominant): Practice identifying contexts where autonomy/agency are invited (e.g., leadership tasks) and shifting accordingly.

Evan (autonomy/agency dominant): Cultivate sensitivity to contexts inviting collaboration or receptivity (e.g., team meetings).

Sofia (oscillating): Slow reactivity to assess contextual signals before shifting poles.

Contextual Modulation as Lifelong Skill

Therapeutic success is measured not by static pole balance but by lifelong adaptive responsiveness—the fluid capacity to move along axes in ways that respect both inner coherence and external reality. Clients learn that harmony is dynamic: responsive to shifting contexts, evolving identity, and recursive integration.

Integration With Therapeutic Schools

UPA provides a structural meta-framework that can integrate diverse therapeutic schools by interpreting their core mechanisms as polarity operations. Rather than replacing established modalities, UPA clarifies how each engages specific axes, how they succeed when polarity is balanced, and where they may require supplementation.

Cognitive–Behavioral Therapies (CBT/ACT)

CBT targets cognitive appraisals and behavioral responses. Within UPA, this corresponds to work along the affect–cognition and security–exploration axes:

• Cognitive restructuring refines cognition to rebalance affect
• Exposure supports exploration over security
• ACT’s acceptance processes cultivate receptivity, while committed action strengthens agency

UPA expands CBT by emphasizing multi-axis coherence and contextual modulation beyond targeted skills.

Psychodynamic / Relational Approaches

Psychodynamic therapy foregrounds unconscious patterns, relational templates, and attachment. UPA aligns these processes with autonomy–belonging and agency–receptivity regulation:

• Transference reveals habitual polarity configurations
• Insight integrates underexpressed poles into self-narrative
• Relational work fosters contextual flexibility

UPA complements psychodynamic work by providing explicit polarity maps and recursive integration models.

Humanistic / Experiential Therapies

Humanistic models emphasize authenticity, presence, and growth. UPA identifies these as cultivating balanced expression along self–world and novelty–stability axes:

• Experiential focus supports receptivity to internal states
• Growth orientation encourages novelty and recursive integration

UPA extends these models by embedding them in a multi-axis diagnostic and developmental structure.

Mindfulness-Based Therapies

Mindfulness practice enhances awareness and flexibility across axes:

• Supports regulation of affect–cognition
• Increases receptivity to internal experience
• Improves contextual attunement

UPA situates mindfulness within broader polarity dynamics and recursive identity processes.

Somatic Therapies

Somatic approaches foreground embodied regulation of polarity:

• Resourcing stabilizes security–exploration
• Tracking mobilizes agency–receptivity flexibility
• Integration enhances multi-axis coherence

UPA articulates somatic work as cultivating harmony through embodied polarity sensing.

Internal Family Systems (IFS)

IFS views the mind as composed of parts organized around protection and vulnerability. UPA reframes this as emergent polarity structures:

• Protectors often express agency; exiles express receptivity
• Self-energy reflects harmonic integration

UPA strengthens IFS by mapping part dynamics onto explicit axes and contextual modulation.

Common Threads

Across modalities, UPA highlights shared mechanisms:

• Increasing access to underexpressed poles
• Enhancing contextual sensitivity
• Strengthening recursive integration
• Supporting multi-axis coherence

Therapeutic schools become complementary tools for cultivating harmony. UPA offers clinicians a unifying grammar that honors the strengths of each modality while guiding flexible, individualized application.

Modality	Primary Axes Engaged	Core Mechanisms	Limitations / Gaps
CBT / ACT	Affect–Cognition; Security–Exploration	Cognitive restructuring; exposure; acceptance + action	May underemphasize relational polarity + multi-axis integration
Psychodynamic / Relational	Autonomy–Belonging; Agency–Receptivity	Insight; relational patterning; transference work	May lack explicit contextual modulation + skill-building
Humanistic / Experiential	Self–World; Novelty–Stability	Presence; authenticity; meaning-making	Can be diffuse; less structured for polarity mapping
Mindfulness-Based	Affect–Cognition; Self–World	Awareness; non-reactivity; contextual attunement	May not directly engage polarity expansion beyond awareness
Somatic Therapies	Security–Exploration; Agency–Receptivity	Tracking; resourcing; embodied integration	May need added cognitive + contextual framing
Internal Family Systems (IFS)	Agency–Receptivity; Autonomy–Belonging	Parts work; self-energy; integration	May not map multi-axis coherence or context explicitly

Summary & Bridge to Social Domains

Holistic Unity reframes clinical work as an iterative process of polarity awareness, contextual attunement, and dynamic re-harmonization. Rather than centering pathology as static disorder, UPA recognizes psychological difficulty as the consequence of constrained, reactive, or mismatched polarity expression across multiple axes. Assessment, diagnosis, and intervention therefore participate in a shared goal: helping clients regain flexible access to both poles, strengthen recursive integration, and cultivate context-sensitive responsiveness.

Several clinical themes emerge:

• Assessment shifts from symptom counting to axis-level formulation.
• Diagnosis highlights transdiagnostic polarity patterns and their functional consequences.
• Treatment focuses on polarity expansion, recursive integration, and contextual modulation.
• Therapeutic relationship becomes a micro-context for safely practicing balanced polarity.
• Modalities integrate through UPA’s generative grammar, revealing complementary strengths.

Clinical vignettes demonstrate how rigidity, dominance, and instability across axes produce distinct presentations that transcend traditional categories. Transdiagnostic mapping enables targeted intervention by identifying which poles, contexts, or recursive layers require attention. Polarity-informed treatment plans show how clients can incrementally expand their repertoire of viable expressions and integrate new configurations across domains.

This clinical foundation forms a natural bridge to social and systemic contexts. Axis structures evident within individuals also manifest at interpersonal, group, and cultural scales. Social environments invite or constrain polarity expression, influencing development, identity, and collective well‑being. Just as individuals seek harmony across axes, communities and organizations require balanced polarity to remain adaptive—navigating tensions such as autonomy–cohesion, novelty–stability, and agency–receptivity.

The next section develops these wider implications. It explores how UPA informs social psychology, group dynamics, organizational culture, conflict mediation, and collective development, showing that the same principles that guide clinical transformation also support healthy relational and institutional systems. Polarity becomes a universal grammar—linking personal healing to communal flourishing.

Case Conceptualization & Vignettes

Vignette: Transdiagnostic Axis Mapping

Client: “Maya,” 32-year-old

Presenting Concerns: Maya reports persistent anxiety, episodes of low mood, difficulty asserting herself at work, and intermittent binge eating. She previously received diagnoses of generalized anxiety disorder and atypical depression.

Narrative Themes: Maya describes feeling “torn” between wanting to advance professionally and fearing judgment. She avoids conflict, often overcommitting to others’ needs. When overwhelmed, she retreats socially and copes with food for comfort. She reports feeling “stuck between who I should be and who others need me to be.”

Axis Mapping

• Autonomy ↔ Belonging: Chronic tilt toward belonging. Suppresses autonomy to maintain harmony. Difficulty asserting boundaries.
• Agency ↔ Receptivity: Overreliance on receptivity; underdeveloped agency. Dependency on external validation.
• Novelty ↔ Stability: Leans toward stability; avoids new roles. Novelty evokes anxiety.
• Affect ↔ Cognition: Cognition overregulates affect; rumination substitutes for emotional processing.
• Security ↔ Exploration: Security pole dominant; limited exploration. Avoids risk.

Flexibility & Contextual Fit

• Flexibility: Low. Difficulty shifting toward autonomy or agency when context requires.
• Contextual Fit: Misaligned at work—context requires assertiveness and initiative, but Maya defaults to compliance.

Symptom Clusters as Polarity Expressions

• Anxiety: Overactivation of security + suppression of exploration.
• Low mood: Contraction of agency; loss of novelty-seeking.
• Binge eating: Attempt to regulate affect when cognition-based control fails.
• Interpersonal issues: Overidentification with belonging; avoidance of autonomy.

Formulation

Maya’s difficulties reflect disharmony across multiple axes rather than discrete categorical disorders. Overreliance on belonging, receptivity, and stability limits adaptive responses in contexts requiring autonomy, agency, and novelty. Rumination and emotional suppression reflect attempts to manage tension without integrated access to both poles.

Intervention Targets

• Expand access to autonomy & agency.
• Support contextual exploration.
• Increase affective awareness + integration.
• Strengthen multi-axis coherence.
• Rebalance belonging with self-assertion.

This transdiagnostic conceptualization highlights how diverse symptoms arise from a common structural pattern of polarity dysregulation and contextual misalignment. Moving beyond categorical labels allows for personalized, polarity-informed intervention.

Vignette: High-Agency / Low-Belonging Profile

Client: “Evan,” 41-year-old

Presenting Concerns: Evan seeks therapy for chronic interpersonal conflict, difficulty maintaining relationships, irritability, and work-related burnout. He describes feeling frustrated by others’ “incompetence” and perceives relationships as burdensome. Past diagnoses include unspecified mood disorder and narcissistic personality traits.

Narrative Themes: Evan prides himself on independence and competence, relying almost exclusively on personal initiative. He struggles to accept help, often dismissing others’ perspectives. He describes frequent arguments with colleagues and partners and reports feeling “better alone.” He experiences occasional emptiness and exhaustion yet interprets these states as signs he must work harder.

Axis Mapping

• Autonomy ↔ Belonging: Strong tilt toward autonomy; belonging is underexpressed. Relationships perceived as constraints.
• Agency ↔ Receptivity: Dominant agency; minimal receptivity. Difficulty taking in feedback or support.
• Novelty ↔ Stability: Drawn to novelty; frequently changes goals. Stability undervalued.
• Affect ↔ Cognition: Cognition dominates; affect minimized or dismissed.
• Self ↔ World: Strong identification with self; limited recognition of world-driven mutuality.

Flexibility & Contextual Fit

• Flexibility: Moderate-to-low. Can shift cognitively but remains affectively rigid.
• Contextual Fit: Poor—contexts requiring collaboration evoke conflict; Evan applies autonomy/agency even when receptivity or belonging are needed.

Symptom Clusters as Polarity Expressions

• Interpersonal conflict: Excessive autonomy + agency; underexpression of belonging and receptivity.
• Burnout: Overextension of agency without stabilizing supports.
• Irritability: Frustration when others do not conform to his polarity orientation.
• Emptiness: Consequence of weak belonging + suppressed affect.

Formulation

Evan’s presentation reflects dominance of autonomy and agency with suppression of belonging and receptivity. This imbalance impairs relational functioning and limits access to support. His novelty-seeking without stabilizing structures leads to burnout. Diminished attunement to affect reduces insight into needs and relational cues.

Intervention Targets

• Strengthen access to belonging and receptivity.
• Enhance affect recognition + integration.
• Support development of collaborative skills.
• Encourage stabilization + continuity of goals.
• Foster contextual sensitivity: when to lead vs. when to join.

This contrasting vignette illustrates how symptoms that might be pathologized as mood or personality disorders can instead be understood as the result of polarity overidentification and contextual misalignment. Treatment focuses on expanding Evan’s access to underused poles and increasing flexibility across relational contexts.

Vignette: Oscillation / Instability Between Poles

Client: “Sofia,” 27-year-old

Presenting Concerns: Sofia reports periods of intense social connection followed by abrupt withdrawal, shifting career ambitions, and emotional volatility. She describes cycling between confidence and self-doubt, feeling “caught between wanting everything and wanting nothing.” Past diagnoses include bipolar II disorder and borderline personality traits.

Narrative Themes: Sofia quickly forms close relationships, expressing deep trust and shared purpose, yet later distances herself when vulnerability increases. She alternates between bold professional initiatives and sudden disengagement. She experiences rapid shifts in mood, identity expression, and life direction, often triggered by context but without clear continuity.

Axis Mapping

• Autonomy ↔ Belonging: Rapid oscillation; intense belonging followed by abrupt return to autonomy.
• Agency ↔ Receptivity: Periods of strong agency give way to heightened receptivity and dependence.
• Novelty ↔ Stability: Strong novelty-seeking; difficulty maintaining stability after initial enthusiasm.
• Affect ↔ Cognition: Affective states dominate during peaks; cognition may overcorrect during withdrawal.
• Security ↔ Exploration: Brief bursts of exploration disrupted by abrupt retreats into security.

Flexibility & Contextual Fit

• Flexibility: High moment-to-moment shifting but low coherence; changes are reactive rather than adaptive.
• Contextual Fit: Poor—oscillation often mismatched to actual demands; shifts reflect internal tension rather than contextual need.

Symptom Clusters as Polarity Expressions

• Emotional volatility: Rapid polarity swings without integration.
• Identity diffusion: Lack of stable multi-axis coherence.
• Unstable relationships: Oscillation between belonging and autonomy destabilizes attachment.
• Impulsivity: Novelty-seeking without grounding in stability.

Formulation

Sofia’s presentation reflects instability across multiple axes, marked by oscillation rather than rigidity or single-pole dominance. Movement between poles is rapid and reactive, lacking recursive integration (A11) and stable contextual modulation (A7). This instability undermines coherent functioning and contributes to emotional reactivity, identity uncertainty, and relational disruption.

Intervention Targets

• Support multi-axis integration to reduce fragmented shifts.
• Strengthen stability + continuity across domains.
• Cultivate reflective capacity to modulate affective surges.
• Enhance contextual attunement to guide polarity shifts.
• Develop skills for maintaining belonging without loss of autonomy.

This vignette illustrates how oscillation—while superficially flexible—can reflect deeper disharmony when shifts are unintegrated, poorly contextualized, and destabilizing. Therapeutic focus emphasizes building coherence across axes and fostering recursive integration.