Chapter 11 May: Existential Psychology 335The second form of guilt stems from our inability to perceive accurately the
world of others (Mitwelt). We can see other people only through our own eyes and
can never perfectly judge the needs of these other people. Thus, we do violence to
their true identity. Because we cannot unerringly anticipate the needs of others, we
feel inadequate in our relations with them. This then leads to a pervasive condition
of guilt, which is experienced by all of us to some extent. May (1958a) wrote that
“this is not a question of moral failure... it is an inescapable result of the fact that
each of us is a separate individuality and has no choice but to look at the world
through [our] own eyes” (p. 54).
The third form of ontological guilt is associated with our denial of our own
potentialities or with our failure to fulfill them. In other words, this guilt is grounded
in our relationship with self (Eigenwelt). Again, this form of guilt is universal,
because none of us can completely fulfill all our potentials. This third type of guilt
is reminiscent of Maslow’s concept of the Jonah complex, or the fear of being or
doing one’s best (see Chapter 9).
Like anxiety, ontological guilt can have either a positive or a negative effect
on personality. We can use this guilt to develop a healthy sense of humility, to
improve our relations with others, and to creatively use our potentialities. However,
when we refuse to accept ontological guilt, it becomes neurotic or morbid. Neurotic
guilt, like neurotic anxiety, leads to nonproductive or neurotic symptoms such as
sexual impotence, depression, cruelty to others, or inability to make a choice.
Intentionality
The ability to make a choice implies some underlying structure upon which that
choice is made. The structure that gives meaning to experience and allows people
to make decisions about the future is called intentionality (May, 1969b). Without
intentionality, people could neither choose nor act on their choice. Action implies
intentionality, just as intentionality implies action; the two are inseparable.
May used the term “intentionality” to bridge the gap between subject and object.
Intentionality is “the structure of meaning which makes it possible for us, subjects that
we are, to see and understand the outside world, objective that it is. In intentionality,
the dichotomy between subject and object is partially overcome” (May, 1969b, p. 225).
To illustrate how intentionality partially bridges the gap between subject and
object, May (1969b) used a simple example of a man (the subject) seated at his
desk observing a piece of paper (the object). The man can write on the paper, fold
it into a paper airplane for his grandson, or sketch a picture on it. In all three
instances, the subject (man) and object (paper) are identical, but the man’s actions
depend on his intentions and on the meaning he gives to his experience. That
meaning is a function of both himself (subject) and his environment (object).
Intentionality is sometimes unconscious. For example, when Philip felt a duty
to take care of Nicole despite her unpredictable and “crazy” behavior, he did not
see that his actions were in some way connected to his early experiences with his
unpredictable mother and his “crazy” sister. He was trapped in his unconscious
belief that unpredictable and “crazy” women must be cared for, and this intention-
ality made it impossible for him to discover new ways of relating to Nicole.