Every once in a while, someone summons the courage to come up with a new concept. In group analysis, this has been done by Morris Nitsun and Farhad Dalal. And now, you have done it Tom, by putting forward the notion of 'nos'. Nos, as you explain, is the Latin word for we and describes 'the genuine social function developed from the subsequently discovered social instinct, or drive' (Ormay, 2012: 178). Nos then supplements the psychoanalytic vision of Freud in so far-as you say Tom-that in order to understand human relationships Freud 'had to explain them with the ego' (Ormay, unpublished, 2012: 8).In contrast, nos 'is identical with what we call the social side of life, and the social becomes a component of the structural theory of psychoanalysis' (Ormay, 2012: 65). According to its functional definition, 'nos enables us to relate' and thus is 'the psychic function of "relatedness"' (Ormay, 2012: 189). Topographically speaking, nos is 'the sub-system in the psychic apparatus that has the function of connecting the individuals with each other to form bigger units, such as family, work groups, any other group and society' (Ormay, 2012: 189). 'With our ego', you state, 'we relate to people as one individual to another, with our nos, we relate to the various wholes of groups, families, communities, and mankind' (Ormay, 2012: 47; italics mine). Therefore, according to your new theory Tom, 'we have two instincts: the classical ego-centred, or self-supporting instinct, enabling the animal to look after himself, and the newly demonstrated social instinct, the source of genuine relating' (Ormay, 2012: 29). These are 504892G AQ46410.