Back in process....May 11th, 2012...dgb
In this essay, I will critique Freud's concept of 'the id' and -- in very unorthodox, likely unpopular style -- choose how we can 're-formulate' the id, making it a concept-phenonomen that permeates the whole pscyhe -- unconscious, preconcious, and conscious -- rather than just unconscious which is how Freud defined and described it.
Freud created the concept of 'the id' in 1923 to offset some of the ambiguities and confusions associated with his different uses of the concept of 'the unconscious'.
However, Freud only closed one can of worms to open up another -- specifically, he brought some 'fresh ambiguities and confusions' into play when he created his concept of 'the id'.
Every term, concept, theory, paradigm...has both a 'benefit' and a 'cost' attached to it's usage....'The one word, one meaning principle -- to the extent that anyone might even consider it a 'principle' -- is a myth.
In this regard, similar to pharmaceutical pills, all terms, concepts, theories, and paradigms have 'negative side effects' -- and these negative side effects are likely to expose themselves when we -- as theorists -- extend our terms, concepts, theories, paradigms either beyond their realm of 'functional usefulness' and/or beyond their scope of 'shared and properly understood communication'.
On a higher level of abstraction -- probably the highest possible level, like what Freud articulated in 1920 in Beyond The Pleasure Principle -- we can hypothesize that every concept, every theory, every model, every paradigm (let's shorten this to 'CTMP'), consists of both a 'life' and 'death' instinct (just like people according to Freud) -- a 'life' instinct to the extent that our CTMP structurally, dynamically, and functionally represents and/or supports the type of 'epistemological reality' that we can see on a observational level either inside and/or outside the clinical setting; a 'death instinct' to the extent that the opposite of this is true.
Unfortunately, most theorists are too narcissistically biased relative to their own 'pet theories' ( or 'pet CTMPs') to see its 'blind spots' -- i.e., its area of 'epistemological and/or evaluative-ethical dysfunctionality'.
The more 'either/or' we are in our epistemological approach and mentality towards what we are studying and 'mapping out', the more likely it is that we will quickly or slowly succumb to 'confusion between different levels of abstraction' with our thinking that our 'theory' is 'reality' rather than simply a 'representation' or a 'set of glasses' or a 'paradigm' by which we are viewing a certain aspect of reality.
In short, our CTMPs are in us and the way that we look at things; not in the 'phenomonal or objective reality' (to the extent that there is any such thing) that we are studying -- and often we lose sight of this 'epistemological truism' the more and more 'intimate' we become with our CTMP. In the process, we tend to become more and more narcissistically biased and epistemologically, evaluatively, and ethically led astray. Like Freud, who for the most part, couldn't stand it when other theorists -- or at least male theorists (Adler, Jung, Rank, Ferenczi, Stekel, Perls...Melanie Klein seemed to have escaped his righteous wrath although his daughter, Anna, was quick and vehement in taking on her 'surrogate female sibling rival'....)
Anyways, I am trying to encourage my readers to become knowledgable, flexible, and for the most part, tolerant, with other theorists CTMPs -- don't become anally-retentively 'stuck' inside one paradigm, in this case Freud's, because as creatively brilliant as Freud may have been, he certainly didn't have a 'God's eye view' of any 'perfect CTMP' -- and neither do any of the rest of us. The more flexible we learn to become at moving in and out of different CTMPs, shifting paradigms, becoming more aware of the theoretical pair of glasses that we are wearing, and what its limitations are -- where its 'death force' is -- the better in the long run for us. We won't become trapped in our own self-made theoretical prison.
Regarding 'words, their meaning, and their potential for referent confusion':
Every word can be viewed as having a whole host of different meanings, some of which can be classified into 'different typese or categories of meaning'.
Specifically, every word can be viewed as having these different 'categories of meaning':
1. Your (narcissistic) meaning;
2. My (narcissistic) meaning;
3. A 'general social pool' of meaning garnered from:
a) A dictionary;
b) A general cultural or social source of usage;
c) A still general, but smaller, 'sub-cultural' source of usage.
Now, if we go back to Freud's different definitions and descriptions of 'the id' -- of which there are a variety, partly building upon, and combining with, each other, but at the same time partly different, and even partly contradicting each other, we find that.....
There are at least two significant areas of potential ambiguity, confusion, and contradiction....
Specifically, let's identify these two problem areas by asking two respective questions:
1. Is the id a 'sub-personality' with a life and mindset/paradigm of its own, or is it simply a 'reservoir', a 'cauldron/caldron' that contains the life and death instincts but has no engaging life and/or death capabilities of its own?
I opt for the first definitional and descriptive choice which contradicts the latter idea -- but I've read the id defined and described both ways, setting off an internal contradiction in terms of what it was supposed to mean by Freud. Was it an 'unconscious sub-personality -- an 'unconscious ego state', so to speak, or was it simply a 'reservoir containing all the life and death instincts that had all the energy, while the id itself was 'energyless' -- except perhaps to the extent that 'the instincts fed the id with energy' but then it would no longer be a 'reservoir' or a 'cauldron'; rather, it would be a 'working, engaging, sub-personality within the personality-as-a-whole', which I think was more what Freud intented it to be.
The 'id' -- when translated into English -- means the 'it', which brings us to another interesting point or two.
Freud obviously wanted to view the id as 'an unconscious, dissociated part of the personality that we have no contact and no control over what comes out of there, except to the extent that the ego, with help from the superego, can defend against its 'uncivil, immoral, anti-social, instinctual impulses'.
However, if Freud had created the concept of 'the id' back in 1895 rather than in 1923, the id would have, or could have, partly meant the same thing -- as in 'the dissociated' -- only in 1895, 'the id, as in the dissociated' would have meant the 'traumatically dissociated' as opposed to 'the instinctually dissociated' which is what it would come to mean in 1923. Since I am aiming to 'dialectically bridge the gap here between 1895 and 1923, at least in my vocabulary, if not in yours.
Would it sound to unprofessional and crass if I were to call this 'defended against component of the id' -- 'The SHadow-Impulse-Traumacy Vault' which it doesn't take a brain surgeon to see what that shortens into? The acronym fits to the extent that we treat everything that is in this 'repressed, unconcious, preconscious, and/or conscious metaphysical-dissociation vault' -- whether it be good, bad, or ugly in its/our most basic intent -- as if it were 'SH*T'....In the early days before 1897, Freud simply referred to this type of 'repressed, or otherwise defended against, matarial' as 'unacceptable ideas'....which again, could fit equally well for both cases involving 'traumatic material' and for cases involving 'impulsive (and/or instinctual) material' -- of which there were both types in Freud's early case examples, only Freud was 'either/or' minded, and could only see 'traumacy material' first (his 'traumacy-seduction theory' of 1895-96), then, gradually came to see only 'impulsive (and/or instinctual) material, which led to his 'instinct-fantasy theory' (after 1896).
I have played around in previous essays with this concept, calling it 'The Shadow-Id Vault' which, looking back at it now, sounds more professional, and/or 'The SIEV' as in 'The Shadow-Id-Ego Vault' (the metaphysical logic being that 'the construction of the vault' involves 'ego-defenders' that are defending against the 'shadow-id' material), and the energy within this vault -- or 'escaping from this vault' -- I have called, or will proceed from this point on to call -- 'SIEV energy' (of which some or most of this energy might be either 'libido', as in 'sexual energy', 'narcissistic energy', 'altruistic energy', 'love', 'affection', 'caring', 'aggression', or whatever...
2. Is the id unconsicous, conscious, or both?
Here's the problem. By definition, Freud asserts that the id is 'unconcious', and yet he has no problem stating that there is both a conscious and unconsious element of both the ego and the superego -- so why not the id too? In 1911 (Two Principles of Mental Functioning), Freud distinguished between 'the pleasure ego' which abides by the 'primary (or pleasure) principle', and 'the reality ego' which abides by 'the secondary or reality principle'. This, to my knowledge, was Freud's only concerted effort to 'split or divide the ego into two opposing ego-states' (at least until his last essay in 1939), but between 1911 and 1939, he never followed up on this 'split ego-state' idea which had at least partly been around since the mid 1980s ('Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde), and Janet's work on 'dissociation' and 'split personalities' or even 'multiple personalities' as opposed to Freud's idea of 'repression'.
So the 'pleasure ego' of 1911 was the predecessor or precursor to 'the id' only the pleasure ego was (by logical extension) a partly 'conscious', partly 'preconscious', and partly 'unconscious' ego-state -- just as 'the ego' would be defined and described in 1923 -- which raise the metaphysical question: Why couldn't Freud have hung onto these two dualistic and dialectic concepts of 1911, and then 'the pleasure (or narcissistic) ego' could have been defined as 'the mainly conscious ego-state that pays the most undivided attention, and in this regard, most favorably supports, the unconscious and preconscious "percolating activities" of the id'.
I will keep this idea 'perocolating' and 'evolving'...and it will become an ongoing concept in DGB 'multi-dialectic, synergetic, humanistic-existential, post-psychoanalytic conceptuology and terminology'...Did you get all of that? I hope I was clear in my line of logic...
From an 'evolutionary' point of view, a point of view that Freud liked, although Freud was influenced more by 'Darwinian evolutionary theory' whereas I am influenced more by 'Hegelian evolutionary theory', Freud argued that the newborn baby started out as 'all id' -- or alternatively, 'all narcissistic ego' -- and that as the newborn baby evolves, just as man himself evolved over thousands of years, the issues of both 'self-preservation' and 'ethics' came/comes into play in our evolution such that 'the ego' or 'reality ego' and 'the superego' are, generally speaking, and all else being equal, psychological and philosophical 'evolutionary improvements' over the 'primitive id' and 'supporting narcissistic ego', working in tandem -- and alone together with little or no regard for the issues of 'self-preservation' and/or 'social unity and cohesion through ethics and morals....'
That, for the most part, has changed over thousands of years as man has evolved, and it happens too over the years in our own personal, individual evolution -- generally speaking, and all else being equal....
However, at times in our life -- well, everyday actually -- we revert back to the more primordal, primitive, uncivil thinking of our 'id' and 'narcissistic ego' with or without 'the modifications of our (reality) ego's and/or our superego's usually more ethical-moral-civil thinking and behaving activity'.
All three elements of our 'Wholistic Self or Personality' (more conceptual-theoretical elements to the extent that we do more 'ego, superego, and id splitting' than what Freud did) are necessary for our functional survival.
Our 'humanistic-existential problem' -- as opposed to our 'biological-reductionist-deterministic problem' -- is getting our 'multi-dialectic, homeostatic balance...
Right...
For our own needs, interests, wants, and impulsive drives...
In conjunction with our self-determined, 'ethical-moral (humanistic-existential) self ideals and expectations'...
In such a way....
That we can live ideally on reasonably good terms with our spouses, our family, our friends, our neigbours, our local community, as well as our larger regional, national, and international community...
Without metaphorically or actually trying to destroy each other...
In our worst moments...
On the more idealistic side....
We are striving to be the best we possibly can be..
At what we most want to do...
And making the best contact possible...
Allowing for some areas of personal privacy...
With the people who are most important in our lives...
I think Freud once said...
That being psychologically healthy...
Is being able to work and love...
-- dgb, May 1st, 2012...
-- David Gordon Bain
-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Creations...
-- Are Still Being Created...
