Hypothesis 1: in the case of an early adolescent with underdeveloped ego autonomy, in addition to choosing either-or questions presented by the client, either-or questioning by the therapist may be effective in capturing issues in the embryonic phase of ego autonomy when the client redefines their own positioning as P (a) = 1 or 0. Moreover, the therapist’s either-or questioning induces the client’s own regression under the control of the ego. Compared with one choice, either-or questions lead the therapist and client to take explicit positions and under the immobilization that then gives rise to an interactive mental matrix; this indicates the interactive space that appears “between” individuals, which is experienced when individuals do not try to connect with each other ( Pinney. 1994) with explicit vectors and provide the opportunity to practice decision-making in which P (a) = 1 is clear.

Creation of a psychologically safe space Hypothesis 2: either-or questions may provide access to a quantum parallel world, where it is possible to move between me and not between the father and mother. They uncover a cry for change that breaks down harsh superego assumptions, aids the reactivation of the oedipal triangular relationship (a mother–child relationship that forms the basis for a benevolent superego), and contributes to the creation of a psychologically safe space ( Kotani, 2005) that the individual may stay stuck in reality in times of uncertainty or crisis and use in times of growth.

Activation of the experiencing ego Hypothesis 3: it might be therapeutic to employ interventions that capture the particle or energy rather than waves or time. The client’s immobilization of position through either-or questioning and his attempts to capture particles of energy were the starting points from which vectors were fixed, and the client can engage in autonomous decision-making through the activation of an independent ego autonomy following intrapersonal drive energy development.

Activation of the observing ego Hypothesis 4: either-or questioning may promote an interactive mental matrix with explicit vectors, allow for interaction with others to self-observation from the observation of others, and assist in the establishment of the inner boundaries of self-space where the inside and outside overlap. It also aids in the client’s shift of the axis in self-observation from particle position ⇒ particle momentum ⇒ wave and helps to stabilize the client’s self-identity, which is defined by and for himself at the macro level through coexisting measurements of position and momentum or energy and time.

At this point, let us look at the significance of using quantum theory from the perspective of macroscopic dynamic development and cultural issues. According to ( Nagayama, 2020a), from a dichotomous, “either one or the other”Newtonian approach, the either-or questioning seen as splitting or me-not me incompatible may be explained by schizoid mechanisms or Autism spectrum disorder, but a fluctuating quantum theory perspective provides meaningful insights into the turning point at which the healthy development of ego autonomy is achieved without losing unity. Moreover, this perspective is useful in cases with an underdeveloped ego autonomy and a fluctuating self-identity ( Nagayama, 2020a). If ego autonomy is oscillated by separation anxiety and is developed through the concretization of an object, then the either-or question is the product of a 2-year-old emperor who reflects on significant others, whether to confront or retreat from his own internal state of dilemma, that is, separation, or stay or leave a unified world (in and out program) ( Kotani, 2018). The first separation–individuation conflict is reignited when the second conflict occurs in adolescence, as is the developmental task of reconstructing self-identity ( Masterson, 1972). In Japan, the prolongation of early adolescence is becoming increasingly generalized ( Nagayama, 2020a). In the background, developmental tasks between 3 and 10 years of age are unachieved, and the assumptions of conventional psychological development models are increasingly difficult to apply ( Kotani, 2014). Thus, in modern adolescent cases, the relapse of developmental tasks in infancy will be an important drive for developmental correction between these two periods ( Nagayama, 2020a). According to Kotani et al. (2001), the phallic stage (3–4 and 6–7 years) is when the passive state changes to the active state, which is the phase of development of an important starting mechanism for gender conflict. Adequate active narcissism before becoming involved in the conflict of the oedipal triangle leads to the drive for the subsequent developmental process through oedipal conflict. This phallic active initiative creates energy to use aggressiveness as forward energy instead of defense. However, the weakness of the source of this energy, that is, “phallic energy,” is considered a characteristic of modern Japanese adolescents. Especially for men, the problem that the collective collusion dynamics of the negative oedipal constellation in which the father is placed far away under the collusion with the mother who has grown in existence covers modern Japan is clear ( Hashimoto, 2008). Adolescents with weak phallic energy are more likely to use defenses that cover their libidinal impulses with aggressive impulses and need help in activating, differentiating, and integrating their respective impulses ( Kotani et al., 2001).

Japan is a maternal society, as opposed to the Western paternal society which gives a high value on the satisfaction of the individual’s needs and growth. A given group of Japanese first formed “an overall place,” putting emphasis on maintaining the equilibrium of this place ( Kawai, 1976). Under the “Amae [dependence]” culture, the Japanese seek a sense of unity similar to a mother–child relationship from the other party ( Doi, 1971), grasp reality in an ambiguous manner, and become accustomed to ambiguous expressions that cannot be answered clearly with two choices ( Kawai, 2003). This is also related to the fact that the matrix-like thing is involved in the structure of cognition and emotions that are formed in close connection with motherly existence and creates ambiguity at the expression level ( Kawai, Nakazawa, 2003). It provides the basis of uncertainty in quantum theory and is regarded as the movement of the wholeness that the infinite number of elements change, while being interrelated with each other ( Kawai, Nakazawa, 2003). However, in recent years, the principle of maternal society has disappeared; parents are no longer functioning as agents who bear the structure and authority, and while family relationships are diminishing, the boundaries are disappearing ( Kawai, 2013). This results in the problem that the energy that develops in multiple simultaneous parallel directions in quantum mechanics cannot be operated, and the vector of the intrapersonal drive energy development cannot be determined, while the two types of drive energy, libido and aggression, remain compressed ( Kotani et al., 2001). In these circumstances, many young men in modern Japan are in a state of school nonattendance and withdrawal with vague interpersonal anxiety that is difficult to be aware of ( Nabeta, 2009). They either excessively adapt to groups by denying themselves or avoid groups and isolate themselves because they cannot form a secure boundary between themselves and others ( Ishikawa, 2009). An increasing number of young men who do not attempt to leave the bilateral relationship of permissiveness despite a fairly strong ego—the modern difficult patients who are the prototype of hikikomori—has been observed ( Kotani, 2014). To stabilize an autonomous ego, the client needs mother–child mental matrixes through which they can safely enjoy the fluctuating quantum space ( Nagayama 2020a).

The either-or questioning encourages regression under the control of the ego, helps the therapist and client take a clear position at P (a) = 1 or 0, and activates phallic energy ( Nagayama 2020a). It will also be useful in activating libido and aggression, while oscillating back and forth between active and passive, and helping to move toward differentiation and integration. It is a development from the switching of the axis foot by the ego to grasp the two axes of active-passive and libido-aggression and to make the best use of these complementarities.

Client. An early adolescent boy. On the account of school nonattendance ( futoko), the client was visiting a day center at his mother’s request.

History. The parents were unwell. The client had been quiet, well-behaved, and nervous in his early childhood. The mother focused on the client’s early education. The client developed early and was toilet-trained before turning two years old. He was so dexterous that he could use chopsticks at the age of two and had a high-achieving attitude. He underwent an operation for undescended testicles before school. From the second term of the first grade onward, he was usually absent from school. The father adored the client, causing the mother to show affection toward the older brother. Recently, since the father is busy with his job, the client is mostly alone with his mother. He struggles with eating his meals and changing his clothes and does not like to remove his mask.

Therapeutic structure. Combined psychotherapy was conducted, which consisted of individual therapy and group activities once a week.

Case study progression: (1) client’s speech is in quotation marks (“”), therapist’s speech is in brackets (<>), and the points of change are in italics.

Ground rules, such as speaking and playing freely, were explained. The therapist asked if the client had any questions. The client froze, looking confused and resentful. The following are the behavioral responses of the client in relation to each question: (1) To be honest, is it difficult to be with me right now? The client looked shocked and nodded. (2) Thank you. I want you to take it easy here. The client remained rigid and unrelaxed in response to the therapist’s question. (3) Do you play sports? How about baseball? The client nodded. (4) How about soccer? The client’s facial expression became relaxed as he nodded.(5) So, you play soccer? The client responded with a “Yes.” (6) Do you have a favorite player? The client responded with “(Japan’s leading defender) X” (the conversation regarding this topic ended).(7) What do you do indoors? Shogi (Japanese Chess)? The therapist asked the questions separately. The client responded, “I do play shogi.”(8) What do you want to play? Shall we play shogi? The client smiled and nodded. At the start of the game, the client was winning. (9) Would you like to pause the game? The client responded, “No, I’ll keep trying.” The client attacked with a hisha (a rock), which the therapist likewise returned. The client kept up with the therapist, and they continued attacking each other using the same hands. They ended up laughing together. In the end, the client won. The client responded, “That was fun.”

Subsequently, the client did not speak up. The therapist presented with options on what he liked for the client, such as “Do you want to play shogi or draw pictures?”. Until ♯7, the client was unwell, and the two met roughly every other week. In #2–3, the client chose the game of shogi. The therapist took his advice, and the client thought of both of them. The client used all his remaining pieces in the last five minutes of the game and won. His voice became louder. In #4–5 ( What should we do? Shall we play shogi? Something different? or shogi?), the therapist lost, but the client said, “We can play more.” The two restarted the game. The client did not use any of his pieces, saying, “The game is not finished. Maybe we are tied.” and “I think you won.” The client nodded and said, “I want to play this next, although I don’t know the rules.” The client then chose a new game (dice). In ♯6, ( What should we do?), the therapist showed him a board game and asked “This one, or something else? Something else?” The client showed interest. The therapist asked, “A different board game, or do you want to draw pictures?” The client chose backgammon. The client did not know the rules and froze. Later on, the client began blocking. Both the client and the therapist blocked each other and laughed. They were then unable to move their pieces. In #7, from this point, the client stopped wearing a mask. In the hallway, the mother and son stared at each other in silence. The mother asked “What do you want to do with your mask? Do you want to take it with you?” The son replied, “No.” ( It is best if he makes his own choice.) The mother appeared shocked and asked again, “What do you want to do?’ The son replied, “I don’t need it.” The therapist performed the Baum test. The client said, “I don’t have a model. Please draw one.” The therapist then responded, “Draw however you want.” The client made a drawing. The client said, “I’m not good at it. I wanted to make it more detailed and accurate. Isn’t the face weird?” The therapist responded, “No, it’s not weird. What bothers you?” Moreover, the client responded, “Nothing specific. I just thought it was weird.”

Given that the client failed to decide what to do, the therapist narrowed down what they would play. The therapist’s first spontaneous response was the question, “Would you like to pause the game?” (♯1). The client had an immature ego that struggled when called on for autonomy ( Nagayama, 2016). With the underdeveloped ego autonomy of the client, he is unable to emerge from his shell other than by trying to get along with others. This is a dependent personality-style defense pattern that shows a sense of inferiority, seeks authority in making decisions, and plays a passive role. He is likewise unable to make his own decisions. Because embodiment was frequently repeated until (♯7), when the client decided to remove his mask against his mother’s will with the help of the therapist, the client’s underdeveloped resilience of ego autonomy manifested. Such autonomy should have been generated during the separation process from his mother by age 3 ( Kotani, 2018). Because the client felt compelled to hide his face with a mask until then, it is likely considered a problem of anxiety with being noticed. This issue is typical in adolescence, and the client was merely following his mother to stay less visible by hiding his libidinal impulses. This indicates a problem with sexual identity as well as weak phallic energy during sexual differentiation in adolescence ( Kotani et al., 2001). The client stopped attending school as he entered the latency stage, which prevented him from obtaining sufficient experience with the oedipal triangular relationship. With a symbiotic but insufficiently protective relationship with his mother, his parents’ poor health, and his undescended testicles, the client developed problems with group identity, which resulted in the underdevelopment of his phallic and superego. The client could not enter into a positive oedipal position under the close, extreme double-bind state of the mother–child relationship and had an underdeveloped ego function ( Beres, 1956) related to secondary autonomy ( Hartmann, 1939). Thus, the client performed developmental tasks in relation to the following: (1) ability to face reality, (2) psychosocial expression of instinctual impulses, (3) peer and social group relationship skills, (4) ability to balance triangular object relations, (5) reality integration of thought processes, (6) independent integration of autonomous function, and (7) ability to integrate oneself as an independent entity (ability to be alone). Because the client tried to follow the therapist’s lead and complained that his face was “strange,” it seemed that he tended to perceive the therapist (mother) as all good and himself as all bad. This, together with high oral object-seeking and regression to the ego autonomy developmental stage, led to questions directed to the therapist to acquire ego autonomy.

In summary, an underdeveloped ego autonomy associated with mother–child attachment, the lack of oedipal triangular relationship experience, phallic and superego underdevelopment, high oral object-seeking, regression to the ego autonomy developmental stage, and sexual identity and group identity issues were all common in the case presented by the ( Nagayama, 2020a). Specifically, a common point was whether either-or questioning served as a key to activate phallic energy.

Subsequently, the client participated in group activities (♯8). When he was presented with options on what he liked by the therapist, the client began to choose squiggle (#8, #16, #18, and #20). In #9, the client chose shogi. He stated, “I am going to get serious with a handicap that does not use a bishop,” and won all the games. In #12–14, the client was asked to decide what to do without the options given to him. The therapist asked, “Have you become better at shogi? What is your handicap?” ( What do you want to do?) The client responded, “I’d rather not have any handicap.” In this manner, the client was able to make his own choices. When the therapist was in a tight spot, the client asked “Do you want to change?” The therapist answered, “I surrender. Okay.” The client turned the board to change sides and said, “This is hard. The defense is shaky.” The client laughed and pointed toward the position that was originally on the client’s side and said, “Yours is solid.” The client won and responded, “I had to try hard because I didn’t think I would win.” In #16, squiggle (2) was selected. The therapist proposed storytelling using squiggle, but the client became quiet. Thus, the therapist suggested, “We can do it together.” When the therapist talked about returning to the time before birth, the client said “Is it weird? Oh well,” and talked about the growth of Peach Boy [a popular hero of Japanese folklore]. In ♯18 and ♯20, the client voluntarily told a story. For the image of the client looking up at a flying bird, the therapist talks about the image of looking down from the flying bird (# 18), while for the image of coming to get on the client’s balloon, the therapist talks about the image of the heading ball falling from the balloon (# 20). In ♯21 (What do you want to do?), the client responded, “Whatever.” Moreover, the therapist proposed squiggle (5). No story told was told. The question “Do you want to play shogi?” was responded with “Not today.” The therapist asked, “Do you have a story to tell?” The client answered, “I don’t feel like doing anything lately. Maybe it is because I was active for a while. I don’t know what to do.” In #23 ( What should we do?), the client replied, “We can just talk.” This was the first time the client chose to talk. The client asked, “Please tell me bluntly if there are bad things about me.” The therapist replied, “You worry too much about others. You do not make your own decisions. You probably followed your older brother’s footsteps, but can you be original? As yourself?” Moreover, the client said, “My voice is quiet, right? I want to change that so that people can hear me better.” When told that the client’s voice is easy to hear during individual therapy and in group activities, the client was surprised. The client then asked, “Isn’t my chin too small?” The therapist responded, “That never occurred to me. What area bothers you?” The client then answered, “I’m sure I’m not alone in this,” and the client laughed and said, “I just think so. My cheeks are good … but if I’m not good looking, people might not want to get to know me.” The therapist followed with the question, “What about you?” and the client responded, “I might feel like that, so I thought other people might feel the same.” Furthermore, the client asked, “What happened?” The client responded, “There was a boy in the first grade who was too clingy, and I didn’t like him. It doesn’t have anything to do with his looks though.”

In the group, the client wanted to throw a fast ball when playing catch, but his body did not do what he imagined, and he could not control its movement. However, toward the end, the client was eventually able to throw a fast ball (G#10 #24). In #27, the client said the following: (1) “I no longer stay awake at night and sleep during the day.” (2) “I don’t feel better going outside lately. I haven’t been feeling well because I bought the shogi board last month. I had been pushing myself too far until then if I had any goal of having something to look forward to.” (3) “I used to be able to push myself because I wanted to play video games, but there is nothing now. Do you have something?” The therapist then said, “When I was your age, I felt incomplete all the time. I finally felt stable when I found long-term goals and short-term joy in psychology. What do you think?” The client responded, “I understand that I need short-term and long-term goals.” Since then, the client has been attending a hobby class and has learned to make his own pieces. During high school, the client’s grades were good, and he was not having any problems in small-group activities (when in 12th grade).

Hypotheses are verified using variables and mechanisms identified by the ( Nagayama 2020a) (hereafter denoted by【】). While adding and correcting variables associated with the mechanism of change, an analysis was performed to identify the algorithm for the corrections of developmental problems in adolescents based on ego autonomy.

Either-or questioning was proposed by the therapist to handle the client who did not talk or ask questions. This became the origin of the client’s own use of either-or questioning. Open-ended questioning widens the ego, but this was difficult because the client had an unstable self-identity, the preservation of narcissistic space was difficult, and he failed to talk freely. The client could not develop an interest in spontaneous talking. First, the positioning was clarified by either-or questioning, specifying that the particles of experiencing and a clear interaction of vectors with the immobilization of “here and now” boundaries were called for. The question, “Is it difficult to be with me right now?” (♯1) could be considered the starting point. The proposals and the presentation of options on what he liked from the therapist can be considered as an attempt at a quantum theory experiment to measure life drives. In ♯4–5, as the therapist chose the questions, a fluctuation between one extreme of completely going along with the therapist in open-ended questions and the other extreme of the client making his own choice was observed. Here, denying the therapist’s proposals can be seen as an expression of denial to regain ego autonomy from the separation and individualization phase ( Kotani, 2018). Initially, the client was living in a world where if he made a choice, he lost something. Here, he remained underdeveloped because he had no experience of loss. This could be considered as “clarifying fluctuation of ego autonomy.” Given his history of not experiencing balanced love from both parents, his core fear was the loss of affection if he did not follow his mother. The either-or questioning posed by the therapist caused the client’s ego to regress from castration anxiety to anxiety over the loss of affection. With regard to this, changes occurred by releasing the microquantum world to overcome these anxieties. Thus, a psychologically safe space was created to address his castration anxiety. With this as a trigger, the moment came when the client was able to hold the space of anxiety in which the life drive is the source and created by facing the death drive ( Kotani, 2018–2019). By asking if the therapist would like to pause and by letting the therapist choose whether the client should go along with the therapist in ♯1, the client confirmed the therapist’s position and readjusted his own position. Moreover, the client then took a step forward to overcome his own issues. Since castration anxiety is inherited by the superego and there is a death drive ( Freud, 1923), the client requestioned the life drive and death drive that have an uncertainty relation and began an attempt to capture the death drive of the ego.

The client had phallic and latent developmental problems and could not manage the adolescent anxieties with active regression in the latent stage. He regressed to secondary social isolation and tended to use the primitive defense mechanism of withholding decision-making. The either-or questioning led to the development of a parallel regression under the control of the ego and a corrective development from regression. It prevented this unnecessary regression and became a switchback point toward subsequent corrective development. Furthermore, it likewise allowed an active coming and going. In other words, the therapist promoted regression under the control of the ego in the ego autonomy growth phase by using either-or questioning in relation to latency stage activities. Similarly, he created the starting point for autonomous decision-making. In this way, the client was able to choose a new game with the opportunity to perform a quantum theory experiment ( Nagayama, 2020a) on the oedipal self (life) and castrated self (death). This was done in a win–lose game using the sensation of “let’s just try,” while repressing libidinal impulses in the latency stage ( Kotani, 2010) (♯4–5). The development of ego autonomy has a wave-flow from budding to establishment, wherein the budding stage is the starting point. Usually, regression responds to a flow with width instead of resisting at a point. However, in either-or questioning, the therapist intervenes with the budding stage as the starting point of development, kindling the point in the developmental process. Through either-or questioning, which involves stimulation of both the ego autonomy growth phase (function) and the latency stage (contents), the client reidentified the self in the latency stage. He also learned to use the latency stage sensations of playing a new game. Sex in the latent phase is based on the anal stage system ( Ushijima, 1994), where simultaneous parallel development occurs. Thus, hypothesis 1 was verified.

Questions, such as “Would you like to pause the game?” (♯1) and “Isn’t it weird?” (♯7) are passive in the sense that the client is asking the therapist to take the responsibility of decision-making. However, the fact of asking a question is active. In the form of questions, the client begins to exert primitive ego autonomy along with object-seeking as a representation of a budding need for his father so that he can step out of the two-person name-relationship dependency. Moreover, the client expects the therapist to realize this through silence. The questions, “Would you like to pause the game?” and “Isn’t it weird?”, indicate invitations to the quantum theory parallel world, including the two opposite options: “We will not pause” and “It is weird.” This movement breaks down the standards of general society and the harsh superego premise as a need for change. The client shifted from seeing both the mother and father in the therapist to only seeing the father in the therapist. Instead of considering himself as wrong or strange for not following the therapist (mother), he was able to see himself as 50–50 in safety. The question, “Isn’t it weird?”, is an attempt to experience being Schrödinger’s cat in the dimension of being noticed. The client allowed himself to go back and forth through the interaction of “weird” and “not weird,” allowing various vectors, thus proving the psychologically safe space. The client struggled with impulse control in adolescence. Given his inability to engage in free-associative dialogs, it was an important turning point when either-or questioning associated with adolescence anxiety arose. For the first time, he was able to question his oedipal self (life) and castrated self (death). With the either-or questioning as the starting point, the client regressed to the latency stage under the control of the ego through activities, such as board games. He then adjusted his development through cancelation with contributions from the psychologically safe space generated in his resistance to the “in and out,” overlapping with the experience of going in and out of the symbiotic world with his mother during the symbiotic stage ( Kotani, 2018). Thus, hypothesis 2 was verified.

“Is it difficult to be with me right now?” in ♯1 can be considered as an intervention via the immobilization of the “here and now” boundaries, as confirmed through an interaction with particles of death drive energy received from the client’s expression using quantum analysis. As the therapist clearly stated their position, the client’s position was clarified, supporting the stabilization of the self. This can be considered an intervention in recognizing the interactive mental matrix according to the PAS theory. Moreover, if we consider the client’s subsequent either-or questioning as the moment in which he attempted to meet the therapist’s subject, it can be understood as an energy exchange with the therapist. This reveals the stabilization of the interactive mental matrix, as in the PAS theory. Herein, considering the occurrence mechanism of ( Nagayama’s 2020a) either-or questioning, the therapist chose shogi, which is a favorite game of the client, to measure life drive and attempted the preservation of narcissistic space through either-or questioning. Moreover, the therapist fell into the trap by deliberately playing the loser’s role. This touched on the client’s need for superiority and the defense of “negation” against the rise of the suppressed oedipal impulse. This led to the client unexpectedly saying “should we pause?”, which is an expression of the narcissistic oedipal need for victory without playing. This is based on castration anxiety, in which the therapist drove the client to the need for oedipal victory through a Freudian “negation” dynamic. Moreover, the client thought of the therapist’s hands in shogi in ♯2–3, which led to a victory without playing as the client drove the therapist into an active-aggressive oedipal victory space. In ♯4–5, the client asked “Is it a tie?” to deny his win so that they could play again. After the fluctuation discussed above, as the therapist posed a question with two options in the real position of the client winning the shogi game, the client chose to win this time and chose the new game on his own. After clarifying the castration anxiety, ego autonomy developed from either-or questioning, and the client demanded a symbol of victory by forcing the therapist to confirm the client’s win through either-or questioning. Therefore, the earlier question of “Would you like to pause the game?” can be considered as the client’s defense of hiding himself in time by macroscopically going along with the other ( Nagayama, 2020a). The question is also quantum theory’s invitation to its world, where the flow of time to the past and the future is indicated. Microscopically, it can be considered a question that demands a fixed point of reality (“here and now”) of the therapist. As the therapist remained “here and now” and attempted a quantum theory experiment that clarifies winning and losing by defining the topos, a space was created in which fluctuation could be shared as time was taken microscopically. The subsequent question, “Isn’t it weird?”, was a question to determine the client’s relative position and to go out. It can be seen as a microscopic bud of “allowance of the oedipal self (life) and castrated self (death) due to uncertainty relations.” In ♯12–14, the question, “Do you want to change?”, was a question to switch his space with the other’s space instead of making the time ambiguous. Herein, the “here and now” of the quantum theory world under the influence of both past and future emerged, allowing the client to face his “past self” spatially. A mental dynamic was activated ( Kotani, 2018), which allows to clarify the difference between the self and others by looking at the past self and clarifying the boundaries among the past, present, and future. In this way, the position was determined.

Furthermore, with the client’s question being seen as an opportunity, the therapist showed a different vector from the client’s existing values. The poles of 50–50 became clear as a starting point for clarifying the boundary between the self and others and as a key to overcome separation by object relationships. The therapist and the client, making their own stories from one squiggle, expressed the quantum theory parallel world of experiencing being Schrödinger’s cat. It effectively represents an interactive mental matrix experience of the simultaneous parallel process that maintains a psychologically safe space according to the PAS theory ( Kotani, 2018). Temporally horizontal and spatially vertical images expressed in complementary and contrasting ways ( Nagayama, 2016) can be seen as the extreme two choices that were developed in the therapist–client interaction. At this time, in the intrapsychic world, the client was opened in the past–present–future vertical time, in which regression under the control of the ego and developmental correction from regression develop in parallel. Moreover, the simultaneous and parallel expansion of the upper and lower vectors occur so that the experience ego and the observation ego are differentiated and the complementary interaction between them is activated. The client moves with will (doing) from the position of viewing (being), as suggested by the story. Through this, by either-or questioning, ego autonomy was likewise activated upon the generation of a psychologically safe space, which led to the client choosing to speak on his own. In this way, the client searched for nonmaterialistic needs, delineated the wished image of himself (♯27), and took actions and expressions upon graduation. The intrapersonal drive energy development activated independent ego autonomy. By obtaining a safe space for play through interaction with the therapist in the game of shogi, the client’s experiencing ego was activated through squiggle and storytelling. Thus, hypothesis 3 was verified.

“Would you like to pause the game?” is a question commonly posed by both the therapist and the client’s mother, preventing conflict by going along and concealing the client’s own phallus. As discussed earlier, it can be perceived as a Freudian “negation” dynamics of the active-aggressive oedipal victory impulse, indicating clarified castration anxiety. The subsequent question, “Isn’t it weird?”, was posed when the client made a different decision from his mother and removed his mask. The client began to see the therapist as the father, different from the mother, and needed feedback. This suggests that ego autonomy was starting to develop. “Please tell me bluntly,” the first statement by the client that was not a question (#23), was posed when he began to speak on his own. This is a straightforward need for the father. “Do you have anything?” (♯27) may be a need for an internal model to acquire an ego autonomy instead of an example in order to obtain his wish. After graduating from junior high school, the client enjoyed his hobbies and was able to attend school. This indicates that the development of ego autonomy is related to changes in questions.

However, some developments are found in which the client measures subjective time in relation to energy, and the changes in state are clarified. “Is it weird? Oh well” (♯16) while storytelling is a quantum theory change at the moment of overcoming the consideration of himself as “strange” ( Kotani, 2018). He felt the energy particles and recovered his own time and space through a time difference, which expanded the self. Combined with activated mental power, the client was able to see the universality of worrying about facial appearances (♯23). Through drawing and storytelling with the therapist, the client participated in the world of quantum theory, where there is no answer based on the standards of general society. In this way, the client questioned himself through relativization, began to speak with a sense of time, needed individual models from the therapist, and posed questions requiring answers with a temporal outlook (♯27).

To refer again to uncertainty relations, the fact that the client’s choices based on autonomous decision-making changed from playing shogi to drawing squiggle to storytelling various paths in the self-space with a sense of time can be seen as a shift of balance for self-observation of the client’s ego from particle position to particle momentum to wave. The change from others’ observation to self-observation and from interactions with others to internal self-observation led to the stabilization of self-identity, which allowed for the macroscopic determination of the self as well ( Kotani, 2018). When playing catch, the client was initially unable to balance his control and strength, which was connected to the lack of balance between his position in the microscopic world and momentum observation—probably creating this choice. After committing himself to clearly defining the reality of the “here and now” during the board game, the client expressed the world of quantum theory beyond macroscopic real time and space through fantasy. This then enabled travel between reality and depth, establishing an internal boundary for the self-space where the inside and outside overlap ( Kotani, 2014). Therefore, since the client no longer sleeps during the day and stays awake at night (♯27), he successfully regained his time and space in reality. Furthermore, as exemplified by the statement “please tell me bluntly” (♯23), his expression indicated the maximization of momentum upon clearly placing the therapist in the father’s position. This led to the initiation of self-willed speech with the interactive mental matrix. This is the development of the approach to the macroscopic internal aspects and the story of the allowance of the oedipal self (life) and castrated self (death) due to uncertainty relations/experiencing being Schrödinger’s cat. In this way, the client was able to access the oedipal world with self-space, maintaining the world of quantum theory ( Nagayama, 2020a), and then able to engage in free-associative dialogs with open-ended questions. Clarifying castration anxiety in turn emphasizes the need for the father, wherein the observation ego was activated, leading to self-feedback. Thus, hypothesis 4 was verified.