The Biological and Psychoanalytic Foundations of Human Connectedness
Vladimir Nemet
“My body is the visible form of my consciousness; it exists for me because it exists for others.”
— Maurice Merleau-Ponty, Phenomenology of Perception
Introduction
All of us carry within us a dream of freedom, of being completely free and beyond any system. We strive for autonomy and, in doing so, push the boundaries of what is determined by the network of systems that constrain us.
But how far can one actually go?
This article explores the tension between the drive for freedom and the invisible forces that keep us connected. In this text, I refer to that invisible force that sustains us yet makes us dependent as – evolution.
1. Evolution as Species-Oriented
Evolution, as Darwin observed, is not aimed at the survival of the individual but at the persistence of the species. Every adaptation arising through natural selection does not serve the preservation of this or that organism, but rather the collective capacity to survive and reproduce across generations. The individual is merely an instrument in this process – their body, psyche, and behavior are shaped to contribute to the broader goal of species survival, not personal self-sufficiency.
This principle implies that evolution does not recognize the inherent wholeness of an isolated, lonely individual.
The human species has developed systems that make the individual dependent on the Other – a neighbor, community, family, or observer. The brain, immune system, and even internal biological processes are structured such that social connectedness is not a luxury, but an evolutionary imperative. Self-sufficiency is secondary; connectedness is primary.
From this perspective, human biological wholeness is not inherent. It is activated only through external observation and recognition by the Other. The body becomes an open system: organs and processes do not exist in isolation, but in mutual interconnection realized through interaction with the environment. Evolution teaches us that an individual cannot survive alone; they require the Other to perceive them as a whole. In short, the human body needs a mirror that recognizes it to truly exist as a coherent entity.
2. Biological Decay of the Individual Outside Society
Without social connectedness, the individual literally begins to biologically decay. American developmental psychologist Edward Tronick, through his research on development and attachment—particularly his legendary Still Face experiment—demonstrates the essential role of contact with the Other for maintaining psychological and biological integrity.
In this experiment, a mother or caregiver initially interacts normally with the infant and then abruptly ceases responding, maintaining a neutral, “still face.” The infant, accustomed to interactive engagement, experiences intense stress: the smile disappears, the child becomes restless, cries, and shows physiological signs of distress – increased heart rate, disrupted breathing, and changes in stress-related hormonal regulation. The experiment is stopped shortly thereafter, as even a few more minutes could result in irreversible breakdown of mind, body, and spirit.
This experiment illustrates that connection with the Other is not merely emotional or psychological; it is a biological imperative. A child without gaze, confirmation, or interaction literally undergoes biological disintegration: the systems that maintain homeostasis begin to lose integrity. This is not only emotional fragmentation but also physiological destabilization—the brain, immune system, and neurological processes become dysfunctional.
Tronick’s work underscores an evolutionary principle: recognition and connection by the Other are necessary for maintaining bodily and psychic integrity.
The body behaves as an open system—organs and processes function optimally only through interaction with an external observer. Without this external confirmation, even perfectly functional systems begin to fragment, illustrating the deep embedding of social connectedness in biological processes.
One can imagine the body as a harmonious symphony whose tones fade when no one listens—only the gaze of the Other can restart the melody of life.
3. Psychotic Episodes and the Virtual Other
Psychotic episodes, visual and auditory hallucinations, internal dialogues, and fantasy entities are often interpreted as signs of pathological fragmentation of the psyche. Yet, from an evolutionary-psychoanalytic perspective, they serve a critical function: the creation of a virtual Other. This imaginary or symbolic entity assumes the role of the observer, allowing the individual to become whole and enabling their “internal organs” and processes to establish mutual coherence. In short—when the Other is absent or incapable of acknowledgment, the individual must create their own virtual observer.
The virtual Other is not merely a substitute for a real observer. It has the capacity to confirm the subjective wholeness of the individual even in the absence of a physical Other. Hallucinations, internal dialogues, and even modern digital identities facilitate the maintenance of bodily and psychic integrity. In this context, madness becomes a form of relational experimentation—a way for the individual to preserve internal wholeness and experience the presence of the Other, even virtually. Donald Winnicott would classify such a personality, shaped by the virtual Other, as a false self. Yet even this false self protects the organism from total disintegration.
Here emerges a paradox: psychotic phenomena, although labeled pathological, serve an adaptive function. Through them, the individual fulfills a fundamental evolutionary need: to be seen, acknowledged, and integrated through relationship. The virtual Other becomes as valid as the real one, activating the same mechanisms of bodily and psychic wholeness.
Psychotic experience, in this sense, opens a secret window into a world where body and psyche find the mirror confirming their existence.
4. Outside the System: The Paradox of the Isolated yet Whole Individual
A question arises: why would the real, actual self be more stable than the virtual, false self? Why cannot we live in our own world of fantasies and imagined companions?
This is the world of psychosis, which I define here as – the loss of hope that anyone will ever see and recognize me again. The organism has no choice but to generate a virtual observer.
However, while the virtual Other generates internal wholeness, the psychotic individual remains outside the social system. Their functionality and coherence are self-contained but do not contribute to the evolutionary goal of the species. Evolution, following its imperative for species survival, cannot tolerate a lonely, isolated individual. The species survives through a network of connected subjects, while the isolated entity becomes evolutionarily unsustainable.
Thus arises a fundamental paradox of the psyche: the psychotic individual is internally whole but externally undesirable. Wholeness of body and psyche is activated through the virtual Other, yet evolutionary imperatives require real social connectedness. Psychopathology, in this sense, reflects the tension between internal integration and social necessity. Therefore, the stability of the psychotic person’s self is insufficient for survival.
Interdisciplinary analogies further clarify this framework. Body and psyche can be conceptualized like a modern quantum system: in quantum physics, particles can exist in superposition—simultaneously in multiple states—until observation or measurement collapses them into a single state. Similarly, the state of bodily and psychic integration in an individual remains potential until interaction with the Other—real or virtual—occurs. Biological systems, such as symbiotic organisms, function through mutual interaction, resembling quantum systems exhibiting interdependence and collective behavior.
Conclusion
Humans are biologically and psychologically open systems whose wholeness depends on the Other. Evolution has shaped the individual so that self-sufficiency is impossible—social connectedness is an evolutionary imperative. Psychotic episodes, hallucinations, and the virtual Other enable the maintenance of internal wholeness, yet an individual who does not integrate into the social network remains outside the system and is evolutionarily vulnerable.
The paradox of internal wholeness versus social undesirability offers a novel perspective for understanding the psyche, psychopathology, and the evolutionary functions of human behavior.
Literature
Merleau-Ponty, M. (1945/1962). Phenomenology of Perception (Original work published 1945).
Tronick, E. Z., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, T. B. (1978). The infant’s response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry.
Vladimir Nemet (2025). New Psychoanalysis and Parallel Identities. https://www.academia.edu/129607071/NEW_PSYCHOANALYSIS_AND_PARALLEL_IDENTITIES
Winnicott, D. W. (1960). Ego distortion in terms of true and false self. In The Maturational Processes and the Facilitating Environment.
