In the continuation of my leap into psych theory in "Irreducible Minds" I have come across some surprising surmises. One already mentioned it the idea of multiple selves in healthy people. This, I find, is surprising because Freud wrote against it; and because Freud became the main man for the first half of the 20th century, we are "unconsciously" saddled with his perspective on the layered conscious.
For Freud, there was no subliminal "other', only consciousness and complexes to which the consciousness shifted at certain times. Complexes were not full-blown personalities, but rather intrusions of psychic movement from a base (lower or primitive) level that could alter the otherwise uniform consciousness. Thus we get the view that most of us have in our heads: that there is the world of light, our "selves" as we know them, and the subterranean world of the unconscious, where primitive urges are often hidden, sometimes leading to pathological behavior in people torn by the hidden and the open, social self.
This is where most of us are in our thoughts, and thus the surprise of the multiple selves (with a unifying subliminal self - much more on that in the future). But Freud, really, is the surprise: for to form complexes is to hide information and urges, but who or what is doing the hiding? If we are not conscious of this act (and we usually are not), then, what? Is the unconscious really controlling the conscious? And would not this unconscious be more like the uniting subliminal self? I for one had always taken the view that the Freudian concept, at least regarding the superficial personality, was a done deal. And yet it is not. Not only is it fraught with a fatal contradiction, but it is now under fire by a more surprising view.
That is, that we have no free will. This idea, championed by Thomas (? Father of Aldous) Huxley in the late 19th century, has come into favor again by modern neuro-psychologists such as Wegner. In this view, what we call ourselves is simply an interpretation of the state of the brain - that is, "automatisms" are the real, and conscious will only an illusory feeling. One wonders if the authors of such beliefs also believe that they have no free will - which would mean that this theory is only an interpretation of the state of the brain at a certain moment or series of moments. Could there then be any truth to it? Another circular conundrum. It also begs the question of what guides the particular functioning of the brain, for the brain takes in infinite information from the senses and delivers to us a real, coherent world. If it is automatic, something or someone has made it so - such order does not come by accident. So I could accept the theory only with the addendum that there is a force - some might call it God - that is at work behind the scenes. And yet, somehow, I believe we will never see such an addition.
In fact, the lack of free will has been posited by Hindu and Buddhist gurus, as well as by Christian and Muslim (and probably Jewish, although I cannot think of a particular one at the moment) saints and wise men that the unaware human IS more or less an automaton - if, that is, he gives in to his immediate desires. The East calls that action by Karma - the West by sin or Satan, but both agree that we retain the FREEDOM to will ourselves out of this condition; that is, we can obtain free will by first using it to counter temporal impulses. Unlike psychologists, the religious have no problem with identifying that willful agency - it is the Brahmin in the Atman, or the God-given and God permeated soul. Which sounds a lot, so far, like Fred Myers unity (or primary) subliminal self. FK
For Freud, there was no subliminal "other', only consciousness and complexes to which the consciousness shifted at certain times. Complexes were not full-blown personalities, but rather intrusions of psychic movement from a base (lower or primitive) level that could alter the otherwise uniform consciousness. Thus we get the view that most of us have in our heads: that there is the world of light, our "selves" as we know them, and the subterranean world of the unconscious, where primitive urges are often hidden, sometimes leading to pathological behavior in people torn by the hidden and the open, social self.
This is where most of us are in our thoughts, and thus the surprise of the multiple selves (with a unifying subliminal self - much more on that in the future). But Freud, really, is the surprise: for to form complexes is to hide information and urges, but who or what is doing the hiding? If we are not conscious of this act (and we usually are not), then, what? Is the unconscious really controlling the conscious? And would not this unconscious be more like the uniting subliminal self? I for one had always taken the view that the Freudian concept, at least regarding the superficial personality, was a done deal. And yet it is not. Not only is it fraught with a fatal contradiction, but it is now under fire by a more surprising view.
That is, that we have no free will. This idea, championed by Thomas (? Father of Aldous) Huxley in the late 19th century, has come into favor again by modern neuro-psychologists such as Wegner. In this view, what we call ourselves is simply an interpretation of the state of the brain - that is, "automatisms" are the real, and conscious will only an illusory feeling. One wonders if the authors of such beliefs also believe that they have no free will - which would mean that this theory is only an interpretation of the state of the brain at a certain moment or series of moments. Could there then be any truth to it? Another circular conundrum. It also begs the question of what guides the particular functioning of the brain, for the brain takes in infinite information from the senses and delivers to us a real, coherent world. If it is automatic, something or someone has made it so - such order does not come by accident. So I could accept the theory only with the addendum that there is a force - some might call it God - that is at work behind the scenes. And yet, somehow, I believe we will never see such an addition.
In fact, the lack of free will has been posited by Hindu and Buddhist gurus, as well as by Christian and Muslim (and probably Jewish, although I cannot think of a particular one at the moment) saints and wise men that the unaware human IS more or less an automaton - if, that is, he gives in to his immediate desires. The East calls that action by Karma - the West by sin or Satan, but both agree that we retain the FREEDOM to will ourselves out of this condition; that is, we can obtain free will by first using it to counter temporal impulses. Unlike psychologists, the religious have no problem with identifying that willful agency - it is the Brahmin in the Atman, or the God-given and God permeated soul. Which sounds a lot, so far, like Fred Myers unity (or primary) subliminal self. FK
RSS Feed