Sigmund Freud made an elaborate scheme of the psyche, one that most of us have internalized - there is the superego, that voice that tells us to behave ourselves; the ego, our drive for self-projection and protection; and the id, that weird part of the mind that some have recently called the "lizard brain," with our most basic drives for reproduction and reflexive actions, including "flight or fight" codes fueled by adrenaline. I find fault in Freud because he didn't comprehend the part of the unconscious outlined by Carl Jung - the mystical part that defies the logico-rational world with instant knowledge, telepathy, synchronicity and the like, but his schemata does give us a useful map.
Within it, though, is the Death Wish, something that is hard to understand. Animals generally do not have this, unless, of course, it is part of their reproductive cycle. We are taught to understand that most of us will do anything for survival, and if one reads the chronicles of disaster by explorers and soldiers and so on, this is largely true. And it makes sense as we now understand things, as we were taught by Darwin and his successors - that life is a struggle for the survival of the fit. We fight to live, always, and if we don't, we are culled. End of story for either that individual or species. To fight for life is necessarily built into our genetic code.
How, then, the Death Wish? On one level, it might well develop as a fight between the super ego and the other parts. Animals do not have a developed super ego. Rather, this reasoning, self-chastising part of us is intended to keep abstract-thinkers in line with the social group. We can make up all sorts of anti-social scenarios in our heads - watch the crime shows - that animals cannot, and so we must self-police our actions. But in this also lies self-hatred - "no, you are evil to have such thoughts!" says the super ego - and with this, I think, we find the clue to the death wish. This "jewel" in the crown of human consciousness, the super-ego, is also a self-killer, for its purpose is to chain the selfish ego, and stomp out as far as possible the disgusting id. The super-ego in this schemata is more like the old Jehovah who wiped out the world with the flood, or who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. because, it seems, sometimes we are just too filthy to live. With this we might make the standard conclusion that every feedback system has its drawbacks, a set of negatives that, to succeed, must not exceed the positives.
With most of us, our peculiar self-hatred does not - just look at our population! But what if the conscience is more than science? What if it is real, an absolute, beyond an evolutionary mechanism?
Here, we must turn to religion. From a social science point of view, religion legitimates and strengthens cultural norms in a higher power, something beyond the individual, but it is not real. Here, though, we find the same deficiency that we find with Freud - a refusal to look at, or even to acknowledge, a deeper, more cosmically connected aspect of humans. From an outside perspective, religion not only reinforces morality, but enhances the self - hatred of the super-ego. Anyone going to a Catholic mass hears constantly, "I am a sinner! I am unworthy!" This assessment of the human condition is in the mass, and in the very idea of a savior come to reconcile sinful man with the Almighty. The devouring super-ego rides supreme. Because of this, one would think that people who are free to decide would NEVER attend services, and for those who did, suicide rates would be much higher. Neither the former nor the latter are the case. What gives?
On the one hand - to get really philosophical - we might say that social science could be stood on its head; that is, that what it concentrates on is the fallen world, the world of "illusion," as many religions refer to our normal state of affairs. But we don't have to twist ourselves into pretzel logic to understand the attraction to religion: it offers salvation from our conscience, as well as from every pain, even as it emphasizes sin or the illusion of the world. And the odd twist here is that it works. At the very least, it works as a psychological therapy, or at least it often does, and often with greater efficacy than modern secular therapy.
Does that mean that the conscience is real, an absolute planted in us to remind us of a more perfect, and less selfish world? This is hard to say, given cultural variation, but one thing that Jung recognized that Freud did not is this: the experience of the unconscious can be as real, or even more real, than our shared material reality. And in this inner life is a path that all religions have recognized, a path to a more encompassing truth that some have equated with God or to a normally unfathomable nirvana. That, too, is perceived as very real, so real that "real" looks like an illusion.
Take your pick: trust your immediate senses, or your inner senses. Which brings greater satisfaction in the end? Which decodes the pains of the super-ego better and alleviates the stress of being human? Which speaks most to what we most want to, and need to, hear? Because in the end, all falls back on perception. Given this, which of the two explains best the questions that every child is born with, and gives satisfactory meaning to the life that follows? FK
Within it, though, is the Death Wish, something that is hard to understand. Animals generally do not have this, unless, of course, it is part of their reproductive cycle. We are taught to understand that most of us will do anything for survival, and if one reads the chronicles of disaster by explorers and soldiers and so on, this is largely true. And it makes sense as we now understand things, as we were taught by Darwin and his successors - that life is a struggle for the survival of the fit. We fight to live, always, and if we don't, we are culled. End of story for either that individual or species. To fight for life is necessarily built into our genetic code.
How, then, the Death Wish? On one level, it might well develop as a fight between the super ego and the other parts. Animals do not have a developed super ego. Rather, this reasoning, self-chastising part of us is intended to keep abstract-thinkers in line with the social group. We can make up all sorts of anti-social scenarios in our heads - watch the crime shows - that animals cannot, and so we must self-police our actions. But in this also lies self-hatred - "no, you are evil to have such thoughts!" says the super ego - and with this, I think, we find the clue to the death wish. This "jewel" in the crown of human consciousness, the super-ego, is also a self-killer, for its purpose is to chain the selfish ego, and stomp out as far as possible the disgusting id. The super-ego in this schemata is more like the old Jehovah who wiped out the world with the flood, or who destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. because, it seems, sometimes we are just too filthy to live. With this we might make the standard conclusion that every feedback system has its drawbacks, a set of negatives that, to succeed, must not exceed the positives.
With most of us, our peculiar self-hatred does not - just look at our population! But what if the conscience is more than science? What if it is real, an absolute, beyond an evolutionary mechanism?
Here, we must turn to religion. From a social science point of view, religion legitimates and strengthens cultural norms in a higher power, something beyond the individual, but it is not real. Here, though, we find the same deficiency that we find with Freud - a refusal to look at, or even to acknowledge, a deeper, more cosmically connected aspect of humans. From an outside perspective, religion not only reinforces morality, but enhances the self - hatred of the super-ego. Anyone going to a Catholic mass hears constantly, "I am a sinner! I am unworthy!" This assessment of the human condition is in the mass, and in the very idea of a savior come to reconcile sinful man with the Almighty. The devouring super-ego rides supreme. Because of this, one would think that people who are free to decide would NEVER attend services, and for those who did, suicide rates would be much higher. Neither the former nor the latter are the case. What gives?
On the one hand - to get really philosophical - we might say that social science could be stood on its head; that is, that what it concentrates on is the fallen world, the world of "illusion," as many religions refer to our normal state of affairs. But we don't have to twist ourselves into pretzel logic to understand the attraction to religion: it offers salvation from our conscience, as well as from every pain, even as it emphasizes sin or the illusion of the world. And the odd twist here is that it works. At the very least, it works as a psychological therapy, or at least it often does, and often with greater efficacy than modern secular therapy.
Does that mean that the conscience is real, an absolute planted in us to remind us of a more perfect, and less selfish world? This is hard to say, given cultural variation, but one thing that Jung recognized that Freud did not is this: the experience of the unconscious can be as real, or even more real, than our shared material reality. And in this inner life is a path that all religions have recognized, a path to a more encompassing truth that some have equated with God or to a normally unfathomable nirvana. That, too, is perceived as very real, so real that "real" looks like an illusion.
Take your pick: trust your immediate senses, or your inner senses. Which brings greater satisfaction in the end? Which decodes the pains of the super-ego better and alleviates the stress of being human? Which speaks most to what we most want to, and need to, hear? Because in the end, all falls back on perception. Given this, which of the two explains best the questions that every child is born with, and gives satisfactory meaning to the life that follows? FK
RSS Feed