Psychoanalysis describes the self as being the claiming authority that likes pleasure and satisfaction. It was thus normal to lean to implicate it in any attraction toward the interests relating to others. However, there too a difficulty emerges: it is the one to differentiate the self from the person. If psychoanalysis does it, it is by considering the self as a weak authority undergoing the dominating of super-ego and id. Thus, the Freudian self, which implies the person, resembles to a matter of less consistency being subject to the external influence and behaving according to the interaction of the super-ego and the id, two authorities which are more dominant. If this were the case, there would be no good reason of making responsible the one who harms the fellow man, "who exploits his capacity for work without compensation, who uses him sexually without his consent, who seizes his possessions, who humiliates him, who causes him pain, who tortures and kills him[2]". This responsibility can only be at the top of the psychological management to dominate it. It is true that it can be influenced by some asphyxiating external pressures, but it is of free responsibility that it is about. Responsibility goes hand in hand with will. It is because one has the free choice to act that he is responsible for an act that he voluntarily achieves. Thus, the will has been approached in my work to clearly distinguish the share of man's intervention in his current psychological state. That led me to differentiate between man and his self.

The Freudian self takes different aspects; it is the self-reality, the self-pleasure, the self-ego and the self-subject[3]. If it can be maltreated by the super-ego and the id, it remains finally the central authority. It is the center of the psychological activity. Is it from this Freudian self capable of enjoying the impulses that the reaction toward the fellow man spouts out: nuisance and respect? However, nuisance is a consequence of the fact of bringing everything back to oneself to the detriment of the others. However, we know that men's actions do not go all in this direction; some times man respects others' right and makes it prevail on his desires. Does this respect spout out from the same Freudian self? This self which is the center of the psychological activity in psychoanalysis, I differentiated it from the human being who acts and lives on daily basis. Instead of considering that the self undergoes the super-ego and the id, I have advanced in the assumption that it is as important for psyche as the spinal column is for the body, that its role is to develop the psyche, i.e., him and man. For that, it works to explore any possible interest in this direction. However, it is confronted with others' interests and with the laws of the coherence linking all that surrounds us and putting a damper on its ambitions. That confronts its need to grow with others' rights and with coherence. For that, and to survive, it develops two policies of action, two obstinate tendencies to progress. One is turned toward itself, militating in favor of any material able to consolidate its development, the respect of others' right and of coherence not being part of its concerns. I designated it by the ego-self[4]. This one is open to any egoistic step that it encourages because it helps its activism to reinforce the self. The second tendency which militates to ensure the progression of the self gives the priority to others' right and to coherence over personal interests. This tendency directed toward the development of the relation with what is outside oneself watches over of the compatibility of the interests supported by the ego-self with others' right and with coherence. I designated it by the coherent-self. These two tendencies of the self work in complementary directions, one toward interior enrichment at all costs and the other toward the development respecting others' right and the surrounding system. Their interactions create conflicts; but they ensure the survival of the self and its development among others and in the system which links all that surrounds us and that I designate by the word "coherence".

In a conflict, facing the pressure exerted by the ego-self that pushes not to respect others and the surrounding coherence, and in front of the reaction of the coherent-self that gives priority to others' respect, the individual oscillates between two solutions.

1 – First solution: choosing the side of the coherent-self with rejection of the pressure exerted by the ego-self. The individual evaluates the situation and chooses the proposition of the coherent-self. He makes his choice, dominates his ego-self and acts consequently by making pass others' respect in priority. In this case, he reacts toward his ego-self and his coherent-self; he has an ideal to reach in function of which he exerts his will.

2 – Second solution: the choice of the side of the ego-self with rejection of the coherent-self. The individual favors the ego-self with full knowledge of the facts. He chooses, silences the coherent-self and acts accordingly, committing voluntarily the selfish act which interests him, putting the respect of others and of harmony in the background. In this situation also, man reacts toward his ego-self and his coherent-self; he exerts his will. To be able to choose the camp of the ego-self or that of the coherent-self, he had to decode the impetus of these two tendencies of the self in temporal language. To the decoding of the sponsorship of the ego-self, the coherent-self reacts. This procedure of translation of the timeless desires into temporal desires is made at the level of the management of decoding and implication from which the individual manages the situation and acts actively, choosing his ego-self without letting himself invaded by it. If the latter progresses, conflict after conflict, and decreases the clearness of the inner awakening whose dynamics tend to be dominated by the inner awakening to oneself, the individual, however, remains able to exert his will.

If he takes the path of the coherent-self and retracts on the way or later, and if he chooses the path of the ego-self and corrects himself on the way or later; he changes his path. He does it by weakness or by new conviction. However, in both cases, in spite of possible weakness and doubt, he remains master of the situation because of his prerogative to manage, decide and change camp at will, expressing himself through his management of decoding and implication.