In DGB Philosophy-Psychology, we will use the term 'unconscious' and 'subconscious' interchangeably; indeed, in my mind, the 'subconscious' is probably the preferable term because the usage of the term 'unconscious' brings with it a host of problems such as 'the avoidance of self-responsibility' relative to one's behavior and the problem of 'who has the executive right to say what is unconscious and what is not'? Anybody can interpret anything and say that it is 'unconscious'; this terminology is a license for any school of psychology -- of which Psychoanalysis has probably been the worst perpetrator and offender -- to make a totally unproveable 'metaphysical statement' -- or 'diagnosis' -- and to arrogantly think that they lie 'beyond the burden of proof' relative to having to empirically and logically defend their metaphysical statement -- or diagnosis. If wrong -- but accepted as being right -- this type of situation can have horrific consequences in both the clinical psychology/psychotherapy world -- and if it gets this far -- the legal world. How about the possibility of a father being blackballed, charged and/or convicted of a 'childhood sexual assault' that he did not commit. Or the opposite type of 'diagnostic error' -- a father being clinically and/or legally 'dismissed' of a 'real childhood sexual assault' based on the fact that the psychotherapeutic client's 'real memory' is psychoanalytically re-interpreted as the woman's 'distorted, wishful, narcissistic fantasy'.
This brings out the whole Psychoanalytic vs. Jeffrey Masson 'Seduction Theory' Controversy that created a big stir in the Psychoanalytic world -- and in the general public -- in the late 1970s and 1980s, I will be re-opening this controversy and presenting my opinions and clinical beliefs on it in a series of essays to follow at a later date.
I want to 'existentialize' Freud and Psychoanalysis meaning that no one gets away with not taking responsibility for his or her own behavior -- regardless of what is 'unconscious' and/or 'subconscious' and what is not.
Furthermore, the usage of the term 'subconscious' implies more that what may be 'unconsious or subconscious now' -- like for example, a particular 'un/sub-conscious belief and/or belief system' -- may have been, in fact, probably was, 'conscious at a previous date' such as when the person was 'learning/developing the belief/belief system' in the first place. Or alternatively, what may be 'un/subconscious now' may again become 'conscious at a future date' through a number of different and/or connected possibilities such as 'remembering', 'associating', 'introspecting', 'psychotherapy', 'new awarenesses'...etc.
Usually, the unconscious/subconscious is not referred to as being an 'ego-state' or an 'ego-compartment'. But my argument is that -- in Greek, I believe -- the word 'ego' means 'psyche' so if we are talking about the human psyche here, then why would the unconscious/subconscious not be viewed as a part of -- or an 'ego-compartment' of -- the human psyche? The answer is: there is no good answer except the 'classic, orthodox psychoanalytic tradition' of not viewing the 'unconscious' -- nor the 'id' -- nor the 'superego' -- as a part of the ego except perhaps from a historical/evolutionary perspective in which case -- and I will have to look for a Freudian reference here -- the 'ego' traditionally has been viewed as having been 'built' from the 'unconscious'. In contrast, DGB Philosophy-Psychology will view anything and everything connected with the workings of the human psyche as being a part of the 'ego' -- or stated differently -- an 'ego-compartment'.
dgb, May 18th, 2008.
