Codependence as Existential Lie: An Axiomatological Framework for Moral Recovery

In this article, we examine the phenomenon of codependence through the framework of Axiomatology (the study and systemization of how narratives — especially those reflecting the structure of cosmic order — give rise to foundational principles (axioms), which can be internalized into Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs). It seeks to understand how spirit-encoded stories (or “living photos”) translate meaning into value, and value into action.).

We propose a tripartite model of codependence, distinguishing three levels of entanglement based on the individual's implicit axiomatic system. Building upon this model, we explore how codependence often rests upon an existential lie: the denial or distortion of personal agency and responsibility. The analysis incorporates the concept of the Imago Dei moment—an inner awakening to divine resemblance as a moral agent—and introduces Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs) as a concrete and transformative framework to counteract the codependent dynamic. While the initial case may appear primarily interpersonal, the same underlying mechanics frequently manifest in workplace relationships, including managerial, collegial, and subordinate dynamics.

Trait analysis of codependent individuals

From a personality trait perspective, it is evident that codependent individuals typically score high on compassion. Psychometric tests often show this trait exceeding even their (also elevated) level of politeness. This results in an overall high agreeableness, which creates a clear predisposition toward the development of codependent behavioral patterns.

Complicating the matter further is the presence of high withdrawal, often accompanied by moderate to high volatility. High withdrawal reduces the likelihood that a person will actively confront difficult interpersonal dynamics or escalate situations to a breaking point. This passivity allows dysfunctional patterns to persist unchallenged and contributes to the quiet deepening of dependency loops over time.

Another critical axis in the personality matrix that inhibits effective intervention is low assertiveness. This typically correlates with lower extraversion, leading to underactive motivational circuits. Over time, these circuits may become reinforced through repetitive relational patterns, eventually reaching a point of near-automaticity — what might be described as reflexive, pathology-induced scripts that become difficult to interrupt without structural change.

This trait constellation — high agreeableness (especially compassion), high withdrawal, low assertiveness — creates an ideal breeding ground for codependent behavior. It is no coincidence that individuals with this matrix often report developmental trauma or early relational deficits, which render codependency not only psychologically coherent but emotionally rewarding in the short term.

Unsurprisingly, this trait structure is more commonly observed in women, particularly those in relationships with partners suffering from addiction. However, these mechanisms are not gender-exclusive and can occur across a broad range of interpersonal contexts — including workplace hierarchies.

Three levels of codependency: Pseudo-Altruist, Orphan, and Antichrist

Codependency, or co-addiction, is a well-documented behavioral pattern in psychology, although it remains severely underdiagnosed — particularly among women. Ethical constraints in clinical settings, combined with the blurred boundaries between caregiving and pathological dependency, have contributed to its continued invisibility. Yet its implications are far-reaching, especially in shaping the psychological landscape of future generations.

From an axiomatological standpoint, codependency can be analyzed as a progressive structural collapse of internal value clarity, expressed across three escalating levels. We refer to these archetypal stages as Pseudo-Altruist, Orphan, and Antichrist. Each level reflects a different depth of disintegration in one’s Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) and reveals a shift from morally confused benevolence to outright ethical inversion.

Importantly, these levels are not rigidly compartmentalized; individuals can escalate from one stage to the next, depending on environmental stressors, relational dynamics, and the continued lack of axiological self-alignment. Each level will be explored in detail in the following sections — not merely as psychological labels, but as value-system breakdowns with spiritual, moral, and sociological consequences.

Pseudo-Altruism – Conscious Passivity

The first level of codependency, which we define as Pseudo-Altruism, is marked by conscious passivity. At this stage, the codependent individual is not acting out of ignorance or emotional blindness; rather, they are acutely aware of the relational dysfunction but choose not to confront it. This form of engagement is especially common in individuals high in compassion but low in assertiveness. While compassion might intuitively lead to altruistic behavior, it can also express itself as passive concern — a non-interventionist empathy that results in chronic accommodation rather than meaningful confrontation.

We use the term pseudo-altruism intentionally. Unlike genuine altruism, which may involve difficult, disruptive action for the long-term benefit of another (including risking the relationship itself), pseudo-altruism manifests as strategic tolerance. It is often justified by the fear of escalating interpersonal conflict and is governed more by conflict-avoidant logic than by a desire to enable transformative change. A typical internal narrative might sound like: “Yes, I know what he’s doing is wrong — and he knows it too — but if I confront him now, it could cause more harm than good.”

This mindset may, in the short term, preserve the status quo, but it also sustains a cycle of low-stakes harm: enabling the other person’s stagnation while perpetuating one’s own self-silencing. Importantly, the pseudo-altruist does not seek direct psychological or social rewards from this role. They are not "addicted" to suffering per se, nor do they derive pleasure from martyrdom. Their motivation is often rooted in low activation energy, lack of assertive habits, and a deeply ingrained belief that confrontation is synonymous with chaos.

From a value-hierarchy perspective, the Pseudo-Altruist remains in the domain of compromised clarity: they retain enough moral insight to recognize dysfunction but lack the structural and motivational alignment (e.g., through a well-developed SIVH) to intervene. In many cases, this stage is recoverable — the person still operates under a moral horizon, and their passivity is strategic rather than identity-based. However, if left unresolved, this dynamic often lays the groundwork for deeper entrenchment into more pathological forms of codependency.

Orphan – Conscious Gain and the Genesis of Manipulative Codependency

The second stage of codependency — here referred to as the Orphan stage — is marked by a transition from passive tolerance to instrumental behavior. At this level, the codependent dynamic becomes transactional, with the individual consciously or semi-consciously engaging in patterns of exchange that serve multiple personal functions. Unlike the Pseudo-Altruist, who primarily avoids confrontation to maintain peace, the Orphan begins to capitalize on dysfunction, transforming the relationship into a theater of calculated gains.

1. The "Emotional Ledger" — Conscious Transactionalism

A quasi-economic dynamic often emerges in which each instance of dysfunction by the addicted or abusive partner is logged, forming a “virtual bank account” of moral debt. The codependent individual then draws upon this imbalance to justify behaviors that would otherwise be frowned upon or even self-repressed in a healthy relationship: excessive spending, secret indulgences, emotional withdrawal, or smaller parallel addictions (e.g. food, shopping, social media escapism).

This type of emotional bookkeeping is fully conscious. The inner justification may sound like: “After what I put up with, I deserve this.” The result is a quiet erosion of integrity on both sides, with the dysfunction becoming mutual but asymmetrically hidden beneath layers of moral rationalization.

2. The Victim–Rescuer Game — Social Manipulation

This level also introduces the interpersonal triangle, most famously described by Eric Berne and Stephen Karpman in transactional analysis. The codependent adopts the role of the Victim in the recurring “Why Don’t You – Yes, But” game. They actively seek advice from friends or family (Rescuers), but consistently reject solutions — thereby sustaining the drama.

This external triangle provides a secondary reward: attention, emotional validation, and moral superiority. Others are drawn into the emotional orbit of the codependent, only to be drained and discarded once their advice fails to produce change. This part of the dynamic is partially conscious, depending on the self-awareness and social acumen of the codependent individual. For many, the ritual of seeking help becomes a substitute for transformation.

3. Trauma Reenactment — Neurotic Repair Loop

Beneath these behaviors lies a deeper, subconscious reenactment of childhood trauma. Drawing from Jungian archetypal theory and contemporary trauma psychology, the Orphan subconsciously seeks to recreate and re-control the very conditions that once rendered them powerless: abandonment, neglect, or emotional invalidation.

In this recursive pattern, the codependent adopts the “helper” role not merely out of compassion, but to stave off existential anxiety stemming from their early unmet attachment needs. Their caregiving becomes a rehearsal for retroactive rescue — a neurotic attempt to heal their inner child by fixing someone else. Paradoxically, this leads them to sabotage breakthroughs in the addicted partner’s recovery: they may subtly undermine sobriety or healing efforts to preserve the dysfunctional equilibrium that has become identity-sustaining.

Example: Consider a woman in a decades-long relationship with an alcoholic spouse. Though she appears devoted — attending meetings, arranging interventions, and expressing concern — her actions may betray a latent resistance to full recovery. She may leave alcohol visible, invite enabling friends over, or stir emotional conflict that triggers relapse. Unconsciously, the addiction is her way to stay needed, to avoid abandonment, and to maintain the symbolic drama of being the “strong one.”

Antichrist – Largely Unconscious Gain and the Collapse of Moral Selfhood

The third and final level of codependency — which we label Antichrist — represents the terminal stage of enmeshment, repression, and identity collapse. While the previous stages (Pseudo-Altruist and Orphan) operate with varying degrees of conscious trade-offs, the Antichrist level is largely unconscious. It is driven not by overt manipulation or tolerated dysfunction but by pathological repression, shadow projection, and the neurochemical addiction to victimhood.

The Shadow of the Christ – Repression and Identity Merger

The term “Antichrist” here is not used in the eschatological or theological sense, but rather in its Jungian archetypalmeaning: the shadow of the Christ figure — the moral antithesis of wholeness, which contains all disowned aggression, desire, and chaos repressed from the conscious self.

At this level, the codependent individual no longer merely “tolerates” or “benefits from” the dependency — they become ontologically fused with it. The relationship becomes the mirror of their entire self-concept. The partner’s addiction or dysfunction becomes a functional organ of the codependent’s identity. They no longer know who they are without it. To lose the dependent partner — or for the partner to heal — would equal total psychic disintegration.

This fusion explains the eerie calm, excessive nurturing, or even apparent happiness of such relationships on the surface. Behind the curtain lies a disturbing symbiotic loop:

• One is addicted to substances, chaos, or self-destruction.

• The other is addicted to rescuing, fixing, and “being the martyr.”

It appears as love but functions as mutual self-erasure.

The Vicious Return of Repressed Aggression

The longer this entangled dynamic is sustained, the more aggression, resentment, and existential exhaustionaccumulate in the unconscious. Because all healthy assertion, personal ambition, or resistance has been repressed to protect the partner and the relationship, these impulses grow in the dark — and eventually return with violent psychological force.

This return is often symbolic, but it can be literal and explosive. The codependent’s years of tolerance transmute into a spiritual vendetta. When the mask finally drops, the person who once devoted their life to saving their partner may suddenly (and with surgical cruelty) become the destroyer. It is not uncommon to witness:

• Sudden divorce or abandonment without warning.

• Public humiliation of the partner.

• Self-destructive episodes (e.g., addiction, affairs, financial sabotage).

• Vicious emotional or even physical violence.

This is the moment of the “Mystery Man” — the Lynchian return of the banished shadow, who declares: “Through me, you shall now suffer.”

Example:
Consider a long-term marriage between a high-functioning, substance-abusing workaholic husband and his uneducated, emotionally stunted wife. For decades, she supports his career, raises the children, plays the social role of the “perfect wife,” and represses her growing resentment. Her own sense of self collapses into his image — she becomes a ghost, living vicariously through his mind, his status, and his pathologies.

Over time, her externalized aggression grows: she withholds affection, builds covert addictions, subtly sabotages his image, and relishes her position as victim. Then — one day — the mask falls. Her repressed shadow returns. She either explodes in destructive rage or disintegrates into depression, suicide risk, or moral nihilism.

The Neurochemical Trap — Addicted to the Role

At this stage, codependency becomes not only psychological but neurobiological. The repeated emotional highs of crisis, rescue, and reconciliation activate a dopamine–oxytocin feedback loop, producing a biochemical dependency akin to the addict’s own.

In more severe cases, when the dependent partner has psychopathic or narcissistic traits, this neurochemical pattern is disrupted by threat, humiliation, or intermittent abuse — producing cortisol spikes and reinforcing a trauma-bonded loop. The codependent becomes addicted to chaos itself.

The result is a horrifying paradox:

• The codependent prays for peace but feeds on instability.

• They suffer deeply but are terrified of the cure.

• Healing the relationship would mean losing themselves.

The Antichrist stage of codependency is thus the darkest: where victimhood becomes an identity, aggression becomes the repressed moral core, and salvation is rejected not because it's impossible, but because it is too threatening to the false self that the pathology has built.

Only a radical existential reordering — such as the rebuilding of a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) — can lead to rebirth from this abyss.

The Double Moral Weight of the Codependent

From an axiomatological perspective, the moral gravity carried by the codependent individual is not only significant — it is doubled in structure and, in certain cases, exponentially heavier than that of the dependent individual. While this may initially seem counterintuitive or even unjust, closer examination reveals that the moral calculus of repression, deception, and shared dysfunction places a far greater burden on the codependent's moral structure.

One Lie vs. Two (or More)

At the most basic level, the dependent person lies to themselves — whether through denial, justification, or resignation. This is morally significant, especially when the dependency becomes destructive. However, this self-directed distortion is often singular in its orientation: “I am not really harming others,” or “I can control it.”

By contrast, the codependent lies on two fronts simultaneously:

1. To themselves — by denying the true nature of the relationship, their role within it, and the cost of their passivity or complicity.

2. To the dependent — by masking the real consequences of the behavior, enabling it under the guise of compassion, and performing an emotional or moral cover-up.

But the dynamic rarely ends there. In many real-world cases, the codependent lies to a third party as well: friends, family, children, or even professional networks. The false image of stability must be maintained. The dysfunction must be hidden. And in that sense, the moral weight compounds.

The Transparent Dependent vs. the Performing Codependent

It is conceivable — albeit tragic — that a dependent individual lives with a certain twisted integrity. They may not deceive themselves or others. They may state plainly:

“Yes, I am addicted. No, I am not changing. This is who I am.”
In such cases, their life becomes a moral warning — a visible symbol of a person who has failed to realize their potential and surrendered to dysfunction. They send out chaotic causal signals in all directions, yes — but they do not pretend otherwise. They do not falsify the moral picture.

By contrast, the codependent performs stability. They present themselves as loyal, supportive, even sacrificial — while in reality suppressing their own truth, manipulating the narrative, and facilitating the pathology. This is not only repression — it is camouflaged moral failure.

Thus the codependent becomes:

• An invisible enabler of dysfunction.

• A false moral authority in the eyes of others.

• A barrier to transformation — both for the dependent and for themselves.
  

Why the Weight Is Heavier

In axiomatological terms, the codependent does not simply fail to actualize their potential (as the dependent does). They invert their axiological structure by masking dysfunction as virtue, thereby creating a false moral signal in the social field. Instead of simply “failing,” they signal virtue while facilitating failure — a double inversion. This makes the spiritual and moral weight not just heavier but internally contradictory, which over time leads to:

• Identity collapse.

• Existential fatigue.

• Deep unconscious resentment.

• Disintegration of the internal value hierarchy.

Thus, the moral dilemma of the codependent is not that they “love too much,” but that they betray the cosmic order under the banner of love — and in doing so, violate both themselves and those they claim to serve.

Living in the Existential Lie

At the most pathological level of codependency — what we have previously described in axiomatological terms as the “Antichrist” stage — the codependent individual begins to live what can only be described as an existential lie. This is not merely a behavioral pattern; it is a deep ontological and moral dislocation. The existential lie, as elaborated in our earlier work on Axiomatology, is the foundation of all four existential anxieties identified by Irvin Yalom:

• Death – the fear of mortality,

• Freedom – the burden of choice and responsibility,

• Isolation – the irreducible separateness of the self,

• Meaninglessness – the absence of intrinsic purpose.

At the core of each of these is a felt but denied awareness — a silent conviction that one’s life is not aligned with truth, that one is willfully living in deception. In this sense, the existential lie is not just ignorance or confusion. It is a knowing betrayal of the moral structure of reality, and its long-term effects are corrosive to the self.

Blasphemy Against the Spirit: The Theological Parallel

The moral gravity of this existential posture finds an uncanny parallel in the biblical warning found in Matthew 12:31–32 (ESV):

“Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.”

In theological terms, the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” is traditionally understood as a deliberate, hardened rejection of truth — a conscious closing of one’s heart to the redemptive work of divine Spirit, even after recognizing it. It is not a fleeting error, nor a sin of ignorance. It is the wilful denial of the very principle of transformation — the Spirit itself.

Codependency as the Rejection of Spirit

This biblical notion maps directly onto the final pathological phase of codependency. In long-term codependent relationships — particularly those that reach the Antichrist stage — the existential lie becomes systematized. Regardless of the dependent person’s level of awareness or moral participation, the codependent becomes the enabler of deception:

• Deceiving themselves about the nature of the relationship,

• Deceiving others about the moral and emotional reality of the situation,

• And worst of all, deceiving their own moral conscience by rejecting the inner voice that knows this structure is wrong.

This is not a small sin. It is not simply “loving too much.” It is a willful suppression of the call to truth, the refusal to reorient toward a value structure that would dismantle the pathology, even at great personal cost. In axiomatological terms, it is the choice to deny the structure of the Spirit, to turn away from the Logos that would re-integrate the psyche and restore alignment to cosmic order.

Just as Matthew 12 warns that there is no forgiveness for such blasphemy — not because the divine refuses, but because the individual locks themselves into a hardened stance — so too does the codependent person risk becoming unreachablein moral terms. They cannot be freed because they deny the possibility of liberation, having come to depend on their own chains.

Occasional Analysis: The Codependent's Moment of Rejection

While the trajectory of a codependent life can be analyzed across decades, years, or even relational cycles, the clearest ontological signature of the existential lie emerges in singular decisive moments. In axiomatological terms, every such moment—every “occasion” of experience—becomes a mirror of deeper value dynamics.

Borrowing from Alfred North Whitehead’s process metaphysics, we can conceive of each moment as an ontological entity, constructed through prehensions—intuitive acts of grasping or integrating influences. Central among these is the initial aim: what Whitehead described as “the best possible option for an occasion in that moment, offered by God—a divine lure toward value.”

In the case of codependency, however, the moment becomes both tragic and morally inverted. The codependent individual rejects the initial aim, which (from a Christian perspective) represents God’s love delivered from eternity—the invitation to align with value, integrity, and self-respect. This rejection is not merely a passive error, but a negative prehension: a conscious or semi-conscious denial of divine order.

What follows is the inclusion of alternative prehensions, influences that do not reflect cosmic or moral order, but serve pathological structures of self-denial, manipulation, or emotional addiction. From a theological standpoint, this is not just a morally neutral choice—it is the integration of evil, understood as alignment with a value or behavior diametrically opposed to the spirit of cosmological order.

What intensifies the suffering of the codependent is not ignorance, but dissonance: the painful inner conflict that emerges because the individual still perceives the true initial aim, even as they reject it. The willful disintegration of the good—as perceived but not acted upon—creates the psychic conditions for repression, projection, and ultimately, explosive externalized aggression. The mind knows what it has done. And so, the lie becomes unbearable.

An Entity in Action: A Case of Third-Level Pathological Codependence

Consider the following scenario: A man returns home from work and casually mentions that he plans to go out with friends. His wife, aware of past patterns, asks, “Will Tom be there?”—knowing that Tom’s presence almost always leads to alcohol consumption, which in turn exacerbates her husband's addictive behavior.

The man replies, “Probably.” An argument ensues. The wife tries to reason, plead, even bargain—but fails. He leaves. She sits on the bed, crying.

This is what we may call a “Jacob’s Ladder moment.”
Genesis 28:10–12 (ESV):
“Jacob left Beersheba and went toward Haran. And he came to a certain place and stayed there that night... And he dreamed, and behold, there was a ladder set up on the earth, and the top of it reached to heaven. And behold, the angels of God were ascending and descending on it!”

The Jacob’s Ladder moment signifies a threshold of decision within a moral entity—an occasion where heaven and earth symbolically meet. The question is not whether the husband's behavior is acceptable (it is not), but whether the woman will respond to the call of the initial aim in that exact moment. The moment becomes a fully formed moral entity, with clear vectors for either regression or transcendence.

From a psychological and axiomatological perspective, the wife realizes—however painfully—that she has options. She could:

• Call Tom’s wife and disrupt the plan.

• Go to the bar and confront the group.

• Call the police if appropriate.

• Pack her things and issue a final ultimatum.

These actions are not born of vengeance or emotional reactivity. They are expressions of alignment with a Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) that places truth, dignity, and moral integrity at the top. If her SIVH is properly constructed—if her singular top value aligns with the initial aim (the best possible course offered by reality at that moment)—then she will act. She must act. No repression, bargaining, or denial is possible once the value structure is aligned.

Our empirical experience has consistently shown this: When the SIVH is correctly aligned with cosmological order (i.e., initial aims), action follows. And whatever the short-term consequences—conflict, disruption, or even separation—the long-term result is growth, liberation, and a stronger narrative arc of one’s life.

This nexus—where a single choice reorients one’s moral trajectory—is not just therapeutic or strategic. It is existentially sacred. In Whiteheadian terms, it is an actual occasion of becoming. In Christian metaphysics, it is a moment of Imago Dei activation—the reclaiming of divine likeness through moral courage.

The Imago Dei Moment

The initial aim — as described in process metaphysics — often arrives not as a loud command but as a silent calling, felt at the threshold between the conscious and the unconscious mind. It is subtle yet unmistakable. In our ongoing example, the woman sits on her bed, overwhelmed by grief. At this exact moment, she senses the pull of action — a possibility that cuts through her pain like a whisper from the moral structure of reality itself. That whisper is the initial aim, and her response to it constitutes what, in the framework of Axiomatology, is called the Imago Dei moment.

The Imago Dei moment is the juncture where the infinite touches the finite — where the spirit of cosmological orderresonates with the concrete occasion of one’s personal narrative. This is not merely a moral hunch. It is a metaphysical opening. A glimpse of what the person could be if they align fully with truth.

If the woman’s Structured Internal Value Hierarchy (SIVH) is rightly constructed — if values such as marriage, family, or relational integrity hold the top position — then the initial aim finds resonance, and moral alignment becomes possible. Action follows. The crying ends. She stands up. She calls. She walks. She changes the course of the story — not just for herself but for everyone entangled in that moral web.

But if, at the top of her SIVH, stand values like freedom, happiness, or emotional comfort — particularly as defined by short-term gratification — then the result is different. She surrenders to the ease of passivity. She cries herself to sleep. And that very surrender marks a metaphysical turning point.

Why? Because every action within a misaligned SIVH further engrains the architecture of that false hierarchy. One crying episode becomes a pattern. Patterns form dispositions. Dispositions alter perception. Eventually, she unconsciously seeks out occasions (entities) that enable more passivity — more occasions to avoid facing the voice of the Spirit.

Over time, this constitutes a mode of being in which the initial aim is no longer even heard — not because it disappeared, but because the psyche has trained itself to look away.

Thus, the Imago Dei moment is the most sacred, most frightening encounter within human life. It is the possibility of alignment with the infinite. And it is never neutral — either it is answered with truth or rejected with rationalization. One either ascends the ladder Jacob saw in his dream — or stays asleep beside it, believing there is no ladder at all.

“Eli, Eli, Lama Sabachthani?” — The Cry of Limit and the Measure of the Infinite

The words of Christ on the cross — “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” — are among the most misinterpreted sentences in human history. Postmodernist thinkers often cite them as evidence of theological breakdown, a rupture in the grand narrative, a moment of despair that validates existential relativism and ontological absurdity.

But from an Axiomatological perspective, this cry is not the shattering of meaning — it is the very affirmation of it. It is defiance in the face of the Absolute, not denial of the Absolute itself. Christ’s exclamation is not an existential rebellion — it is a declaration of how far obedience can reach, a demonstration that even the perfect human, at the highest moment of alignment, will still experience the weight of abandonment and the friction of spiritual silence.

This is where the deepest question emerges:
What exactly is the limit of responsibility that can be expected from a single individual?
The answer, under the structure of SIVH (Structured Internal Value Hierarchies), is both humbling and terrifying in its clarity:

If the top value of your SIVH aligns with the initial aim (Whitehead) in a given nexus of entities, then your potential is infinite.
There is no outer limit except the integrity of the value at the top.

It’s not a matter of intelligence, education, social status, or even psychological strength.
In most cases — in most entities — it is simply a question of taking the action you already know you should take. Obedience is not mysterious. Disobedience is not clever. Passivity is not neutral.

Every time you reject the initial aim, you do not merely miss out on potential.
You construct a nexus of existential lie — a life-rhythm of avoidance.

To leave potential "on the table" is not benign. It is, to use Whitehead’s term, a negative prehension — an active refusalof what God (or the Spirit of Cosmic Order) has offered. Repeated negative prehensions do not dissipate; they compound. They become architecture. They become hell.

Each evaded moment of action pushes your aggression, your guilt, and your lost power deeper into the unconscious — into what may rightly be called Sheol, the biblical shadow-world. But nothing repressed dies. The demonic is not a metaphor — it is externalized potential reversed and armed with rage. It will return. It always does. And when it does, it is no longer your servant, but your punisher.

To ignore the initial aim is to dance with the devil in slow rhythm, with a smile on your lips and a hollow in your soul.

Conclusion

This article does not aim to justify oppression, excuse unnecessary suffering, or shift blame onto the victim. The same Axiomatological structure can — and should — be applied to the addicted partner, especially in cases where manipulation, aggression, or pathological evasion of responsibility is present. There is no shortage of cases where the dependent individual weaponizes their addiction to dominate, control, or destroy their partner.

However, our focus here was on the often-overlooked moral structure of codependence, analyzed through the lens of Axiomatology and the application of Structured Internal Value Hierarchies (SIVHs). What we’ve attempted is not a moral judgment, but a clarification of inner mechanics — the architecture of existential avoidance, the logic of passivity, and the painful weight of the existential lie.

This framework — SIVH-based interpretation of decision moments in light of the initial aim (Whitehead) and moral agency (Kant, Dostoyevsky) — has shown empirical therapeutic value, not only in personal and family contexts, but also in corporate coaching, conflict mediation, and identity repair work.

It is our sincere belief that the path toward healing, for both dependents and codependents, begins not with blame, but with clarity — a structure that restores dignity by rooting moral agency in something transcendent, structured, and internally chosen.

Only when values align with cosmic order — when the top of the SIVH corresponds to the initial aim — does true transformation become possible.