The Splitting of The Id Into 'The Shadow-Id' and 'The Shadow-Id-Ego' As It Moves Up Towards Consciousness: The DGB Quantum Psychoanalytic Model From Bottom to Top...

In process...June 23, 24, 2012....



This is a good time to write this paper. My second grandson -- the first from my son, Michael, 27, and his partner, Nikita -- was just born on June 20th, 2012 -- Noah Michael Bain, 7lb, 7 ounces. My first grandson -- from my daughter, Jennifer, 21, and her husband, Mike -- Nathan Wilson, is coming up to 2 years old this fall. 


Freud has described the 'newborn baby' as basically being 'all biological need and impulse', or stated otherwise, all 'narcissistic need and impulse'.  In other words still, according to Freud, the newborn baby is born 'all id'. 


There are some problems or difficulties with this conceptualization that most contemporary psychoanalysts, as well as non-psychoanalysts, recognize. 


Today, Freud is largely viewed as a 'biological reductionist' -- meaning that he didn't put enough emphasis on man's 'humanistic-existential' and 'social-cultural' needs and impulses/drives. 


If 'the id' was today to be viewed as not strictly an 'unconscious biological container' but rather as a 'psycho-social-biological primitive id-ego' containing not only our biological needs and drives but more extensively and all encompassingly, our 'humanistic-existential-social-cultural-psycho-biological needs and impulsive drives, and our almost endless various attempts (vicissitudes) at 'satisfying these drives' -- well, then I could certainly live with the concept of 'id' -- or rather, 'idian ego' -- which can also be defined as our 'ego' in its most 'primitive, primary, uncivilized state' -- before 'civilization and socialization' start to have a greater and greater effect on the development and evolution of 'our more civilized, secondary ego'. 


Thus, newborn, we all have a 'primal, primary, primitive, uncivilized, narcissistic idian ego' which almost immediately starts its 'more civilized, evolutionary development towards our secondary, object-relations (self-social) ego'. 


In DGB post-Freudian terminology, 'unconsciousness' no longer becomes an absolute stipulation tied to the definition of the 'id'. Just like the ego and the superego -- the  id -- as the 'primitive, uncivilized id-ego' -- moves through all parts of the personality, i.e., the un/subconscious, the pre-conscious, and the conscious. 


 In the newborn baby, we will assume the presence of one 'genetic starting point' -- what I will call our 'GPS' -- as in our 'Genetic Potential Self'. Our Genetic Potential Self (GPS) can -- and will -- be defined 'biologically-psychologically-humanistically-existentially'. The 'social-cultural' influences have not arrived yet -- both in terms of their social-cultural-psychological influences, and dialectically speaking, the 'self perceived needs and impulsive drives' that stem from these social influences. 


In other words, we have genetic-biological-hormonal influences and needs from within us, as well as evolving social needs from the moment of birth, indeed, before that even, starting in the womb. 


This tells us that both a 'bio-genetic-instinctual' and a 'social-object relations' theory of psychoanalysis are needed with both components influencing the development of what has been called 'self psychology' including a 'humanistic-existential' psychology/psychoanalysis that needs to be developed to compensate for Freud's 'overly-deteministic, reductionistic model of the human psyche. 


Finally, our social object relations theory of psychoanalysis needs to include an area of psychoanalysis that Freud largely left behind after 1896 -- what we will call 'reality-traumacy' psychoanalysis.   


Summing up, we need a dialectically interactive 'reality-fantasy theory'.


We need a dialectically interactive 'self and social object relations theory'. 


We need a dialectically interactive 'bio-genetic-humanistic-existential theory'. 


And we need a dialectically interactive 'transference-immediacy theory' ('there and then' vs. 'here and now').  


Or stated otherwise, we need: 1. a 'Pre-Classical Reality-Traumacy Psychoanalysis; 2. a 'Classical (Instinct-Fantasy-Narcissistic-Ego-Defense) Psychoanalysis; 3. an Object Relations-Social Theory'; 4. a 'Self-Psychology'; 5. a 'Neo-Freudian' (Adler, Fromm, Horney, Erickson, Sullivan...); and 6. as an extension of 'ego psychology' -- a 'Linguistic-Semantic-Cognitive-Emotional-Behavioral' Psychoanalysis (Adler, Korzybski, Hayakawa, Beck, Ellis, Kelly...


I am not sure how to classify either Lacan or Bion but obviously their respective schools of thought need to be sufficiently or fully recognized, and if possible, integrated into psychoanalysis as a whole...  


The 'Quantum (Multi)-Dialectic Model of The Human Psyche' that I am still in the process of developing seeks to take into account most of, if not all of, the avenues of thought mentioned above...the model being a very condensed picture of a whole network of complicated theories expanding outwards like 'spokes from the hub of a psychoanalytic wheel'. 


Rather than starting from the top of the model in the mainly conscious part of the personality, and working downwards into the deepest depth of the un/subconscious, this time I will take the reverse approach and work upwards from the bottom...


D/ From The Deepest Unconscious To The Preconscious...


20. Our Genetic Potential Self;
19. Our (Nietzschean) Existential Abyss;
18. Our Existential 'Womb-Room' (or 'Place of Perceived Psychic Safety');
17. Our Shadow-Id (or Our Primitive, Uncivilized Shadow-Id-Ego);
16. Our Experiential-Memory-Learning-Transference Templates;
15. Our Shadow-Id-Ego-Vault (Our Psychic Isolation Chamber Holding Back 'Threatening Ideas');
14. Our Dream-Fantasy-Sublimation Weaver;
13. Our  (Nietzschean) Existential Mountain Top ('Place of Existential Celebration');


 C/ Subconscious, Pre-conscious, and Conscious Under-Ego-States....


12. Our Righteous-Rebellious-(Deconstructive) Underego;
11. Our Phobic and/or Anal-Schizoid (Distancing) Underego;
10. Our Narcissistic-Hedonistic-Dionysian (Pleasure-Seeking, Id) Underego;
09. Our Approval-Seeking (Disapproval-Avoiding, Pleasing, Conflict-Avoiding, Compliant, Co-operative) Underego;


B/ Our 'Middle' Ego-States....


08. Our Enlightenment-Romantic-Spiritual-Humanistic-Existential Ego;
07. Our 'Conscious Private-Shadow-Id Ego'
06. Our Central Executive (Problem-Solving, Conflict-Resolving, Compromise-Making) Ego;
05. Our 'Social Persona' Ego;


A/  Our 'Superego' States....


04. Our Nurturing, Encouraging Superego;
03. Our Narcissistic-Hedonistic-Dionysian (Pleasure-Seeking, Id) Superego;
02. Our Phobic and/or Anal-Schizoid (Distancing) Superego;
01.  Our Righteous-Critical (and/or Harsh, Rejecting) Superego.


-- dgb, June 26, 2012...


-- David Gordon Bain


.............................................................................................................................


Anxiety is the dizziness of freedom.
Soren Kierkegaard
Read more athttp://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/s/soren_kierkegaard.html#yIBXDfd0jJ2WHigH.99


....................................................................................................................

From Fichte To Freud: Part 2: From 'The Wholistic Self' to 'The Splitting of The Self'

New Comments...June 20, 2012...dgb

In this essay, we will focus on the subject of 'the splitting of

wholistic self' or 'whole human psyche' -- starting with the German Idealistic

Philosopher Johann Fichte, and finishing with Freud, quickly surveying how
he handled this conceptual problem from the beginning
to the end of his professional career -- for our purposes
here, let's say, between 1893 and 1939.

Now, before we start, we need to talk a bit about 'splitting'. 


1. Different Types of 'Splitting': 'Phenomenal/Natural Splitting' 
vs. 'Conceptual Splitting'; 'Conceptually-Representative-Splitting' 
vs. 'Conceptually-Arbitrary-Splitting-For-Teaching-Purposes-Only'; 
'Functional Splitting' vs. 'Dysfunctional Splitting'; and 
'Associative Splitting' vs. 'Dissociative Splitting'

There are good biological, evolutionary, physical and metaphysical, 
problem-solving reasons for 'cells to split', for 'the body to 
split into more specialized organs and sub-organs', for the
'mind-brain' to split into the 'mind' and 'brain', handling 
'mental and metaphysical (mind) problems' on the one hand, 
and 'neurological (brain)' problems on the other hand. 


From 'cell splitting' to 'species splitting' to 'organ splitting' 
to 'conceptual splitting'-- 
'splitting' is an everyday, every moment, occurrence, 
in the world -- indeed, a very important part of the way 
the world, and organisms within the world, function. 


'Splitting' often leads to 'increased specialization' and 
'organizational-functional efficiency'. But so too, does 
'unionizing'. The bipolar, dialectic phenomena of 'unionizing'
and 'splitting' often go hand to hand, or follow each other 
in alternating sequence.  


Cells unite. Cells split. The body's cells both split and 
unite to form 'more specialized cells' that result in 
'the heart' in one series of 'splittings and unitings', 
as differentiated from 'the liver' in another series of 
'splittings' and 'unitings'. 


Another example is the 'thalamus', 
splitting from the 'hypothalamus' within the context 
and the anatomical confines of the brain. 

Now, the idea of 'dialectical wholism' includes the idea
that 'split off organs' are designed to meet the
unique challenges of more specialized internal
and external needs and demands, while at the same 
time, still working together as a 'team' in terms of 
the overall functioning of the organism. 


Both the liver and the heart work in conjunction 
with each other to meet the overall needs of the 
organism, both influencing each other, and 
this principle follows through to the example of 
the differentiated functions of 'the thalamus' 
and 'hypothalamus' as well. And the differentiated 
functions of the 'mind' and 'brain', the first dealing 
with 'mental' and 'metaphysical' problems
-- 'problems in problem-solving', the latter
dealing with 'neurological', 'biological', 'bio-chemical',
and 'physical' problems -- 'the hardware' required in 
the process of 'mental problem-solving'. 


A 'man-made, conceptual splitting' that seems to 
follow a 'natural, evolutionary splitting' (for example, 
the liver vs. the heart, the mind vs. the brain, and 
the thalamus vs. the hypothalamus is not likely going 
to generate as much disagreement and controversy as 
a 'man-made, conceptual splitting' that is supposed to 
represent a 'natural splitting' that is not as easy to 
'empirically see' -- and therefore 'scientifically 
justify'. 


Such is the nature of many of the 'conceptual splittings' 
that you will see below -- for example, you can't 'see' 
an 'ego-splitting' or an 'id-splitting' or a 'superego-splitting',
and thus, these 'conceptual splittings' are likely to be more 
'highly contested' as to whether they even exist or not. 


If nothing else, 'functionality relative to teaching purposes' 
might have to provide the justification for these 'conceptual 
splittings' -- if they cannot be easily defended as 'natural splittings'.


Different people conceptualize in different ways, and there is no 
question that unique individuals, as well as particular 'groups' of individuals, create their own 
unique 'conceptual splittings' that may be quite different than other individual and/or group
'conceptual splittings'. 


 What is 'functional' and what is 'dysfunctional'? -- this question needs to always be asked --
in context to a person's and/or a couple's and/or a group's and/or an organizations internal 
and external needs, demands, stresses, etc. 

The whole subject matter of 'splitting can become 'philosophically muddled in 'metaphysical issues'
but take what I have said above as an introductory starting-point.

Now, the philosopher David Hume didn't believe that 'The Self' was anything more
than a convenient 'generalization-conceptualization-label' used to talk about something
that doesn't exist because 'The Self can't be seen' -- or at least the metaphysical
part of our Self cannot be seen -- just our 'Body Self'.

But I am going to assume that 'Our Metaphysical Self' exists as a 'coherent, psychological
entity', and based on this assumption, let's look at some of the possible 
ways that 'The Wholistic, Metaphysical Self' can be 'split':

Fifteen Different Types of Phenomenal and/or Conceptual Splitting of 

'The Wholistic Self Into:

01. 'Consciousness' vs. 'Unconsciousness';

02. 'Associated and/or Dissociated Ego-States' (such as 'ego' and 'alter-ego');

03. 'Pleasure-(sexual) instincts'  vs. 'Ego-Instincts' (Problem-Solving,

Conflict-Resolving, and Self-Preservation Instincts);

04. 'The Pleasure-and-Sexual-Ego' vs. 'The Self-Preserving-Reality-Ego';

05. 'The Ego Ideal' vs. 'The Superego';

06. 'The Ego', 'Superego', and 'Id';

07. 'Id-Splitting';

08. 'Ego-Splitting';

09. 'Superego-Splitting';

10. 'Reality vs. Fantasy-Splitting';


11. 'Transference' vs. 'immediacy' Splitting;


12. The Splitting of 'Life' vs. 'Death' Forces 
Within The Mind and Body;


13. 'Mind'-'Body' Splitting;


14. 'Mind'-'Brain' Splitting;


15. 'Love' vs. 'Hate' Splitting. 

Let's start with the evolutionary development of the concept

of the 'Whole Self' -- the 'I' -- before we get into the idea of 
'conceptually and reductionistically splitting the 'I' into however 

many 'Humpty Dumpty' pieces that we want to split 

'it' -- as in 'ourselves' -- up into. 


Whatever we do for 'classification', 'educational' and/or 'teaching'  

purposes, we must remember

to put 'Humpty Dumpty back together again'. 

If we don't put Humpty Dumpty back together again, 

then all of us choosing to go this 'conceptual, 

reductionistic route', face the very real danger of 

becoming lost 'dissociated, fragmented, alienated, 

reductionistic, deterministic automated, 

objectified -- souls' -- in effect, 'Humpty Dumpty' in 
20 shattered, dissociated, dysfunctional pieces. 

In effect, we lose the 'I' in I.

We can learn by going this route -- just like we would 

if we were studying the human body with all its different 

parts and organs and systems...

It's just that -- like studying the human body -- when 

studying the human mind-brain-psyche -- you can't 

study the individual pieces without coming back to 

the 'multi-dialectically united system of the whole' 

This is what I am calling 'Quantum Psychoanalysis'.

................................................................................................................

The concept ot the 'ego' was formalized in Freud's famous

1923 essay, The Ego and The Id. However, informally, Freud

had been using the concept of the ego at least as far back as

1894 (The Neuro-Psychoses of Defense) -- and probably

before.

Indeed, the concept of the ego stretches back into the

philosophy of last decade of the 18th century -- specifically,

as far back as the German Idealistic philosophy, Johann

Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814).

Fichte's philosophy was essentially the philosophy of the 'I' in

an entirely subjective sense, following partly in the footsteps

of Descartes, and perhaps partly in the footsteps of Spinoza.

Descartes was 'The Great Subjectivist' -- 'I think, therefore

I am.'  Spinoza, in contrast, was 'The Great Wholist, The

Great Pantheist' -- God, Nature, and Man are all the same

thing, all part of the same 'Whole'. God is in Everything,

and Everything is a part of God.

Kant preceded Fichte and created 'The Great Subjective-

Objective Split'. We cannot 'know' anything 'objectively';

only 'subjectively' as an 'appearance' or a 'phenomenal

approximation' of the 'thing-in-itself', the latter of which

is beyond the boundaries of our senses -- and therefore,

essentially 'unknowable'. Anything that is 'meta-physical'

 -- 'above and beyond physics', which in this sense,

includes physics, indeed, includes everything because

even physics requires the use of our senses; everything

requires the use of our senses , and therefore, everything

is essentially 'unknowable' as 'the thing-in-itself (our 'noumenal/objective world') that is beyond the realm

of our senses.

David Hume started Kant's very 'skeptical' line of thinking,

indeed, was Kant's greatest philosophical influencer, and

even though Kant tried hard to get beyond Hume's 'Ultra-

Empiricism and Empirical Skepticism' -- if you take hardline

 empiricism to its ultimate conclusion you are left with

essentially nothing, other than perhaps what you see in

front of your face, and Kant took even our 'senses' one

step further than Hume in saying that our 'senses are

imperfect' and therefore we can 'know nothing' other

than what our senses tell us -- and this is our 'subjective-

phenomenal world of appearances' as opposed to the

'objective-noumenal world of the things in themselves'.

Did you follow all that? Philosophy -- and epistemology

(a subdivision of philosophy that focuses on the study

 of knowledge) -- will drive you crazy if you let it.

There is a point at which we all have to say --

'Enough is enough' -- and come back to 'pragmatic,

workable reality'  unless we are independently wealthy,

have too much time on our hands, and like to 'fly our

brain to its outer limits' for 'ego-testing pleasure purposes' 

and/or to test how high we can fly with the great 

philosophers (and/or the philosophers who played with 

words as abstractions to make them seem more brilliant 

than they were, until you don't know whether you are

coming or going, and you blame yourself for not being 

able to keep up with them... 

Suffice is to say here, that Kant conceptually divided

our wholistic world into two halves: 'our subjective-

phenomenal world of appearances'; and our 'objective-

noumenal world of things in themselves' that can't be

'known' in their ultimate 'objectivity'.

And for this, he drove many philosophers, academics,

and students alike 'off the deep end of subjective and/or

objective sanity'. My advice is to 'jump off the Kantian Ship'

before you get to this point of 'impending epistemological

insanity'.

Fichte tried to repair Kant's very psychologically disturbing

'subjective-objective split'. However, he tried to do this

using 'the ostrich's and/or psychotic's approach'.

Deny objective (noumenal) reality.

If we can't 'know' it, then it doesn't exist.

Retreat into your subjective 'Platonic Palace of Beauty

and Peace'.  (For Plato -- paradoxically, if things aren't

confusing enough for you yet -- this 'inner world of Platonic

Peace' was the 'real world of perfection' and, in contra-

distinction, it was the 'objective, external world' that

was the 'imperfect world of outer appearances'!! The exact

opposite conceptualization to that of Kant. The Platonic

Subject is perfect while the Platonic Object is imperfect,

as contrasted to the Kantian Subject which is imperfect

and the Kantian object is perfect!!!)

Time to get out of epistemology. I told you philosophy

would drive you crazy if you take some

of these 'off the charts' philosophical thinkers too

'deeply and seriously'. But for the record, I prefer Kant's

epistemological paradigm and 'boo' Plato's 'internal

epistemological idealism'. Although it could be argued

that I have a 'perfect idealistic epistemological vision'

of Hegel's Hotel inside my head here, and what

shows up on paper is only a tarnished, imperfect

rendition of my internal vision. That argument works

for me a little better...and leaves me a little less

epistemologically alienated from Plato. But I think

there is a different between 'subjective, creative

visions of things that don't exist' and 'subjective,

conceptual representations'of things that already exist.  

Coming back to Fichte -- for Fichte, there was no 'objective

reality' -- no 'Kantian noumenal world' -- just 'subjective,

internal phenomenal reality', and we could/can all 'join in 

and share one big, happy subjective reality together' -- 

at least 'nationalistically' speaking.

In this regard, Fichte was the Father of 'German Nationalism'...

which led to the philosophy of a supremely righteous, 'arrogant, superior', nationalistic Germany, which led Germans down

a rather bad path....i.e., the rise and fall of Hitler and Nazi

Germany...

In this regard, you have to understand where Fichte and

the rest of the Germans was coming from, Fichte and Hegel

were both around to see a shell-shocked 'un-nationalistic

Germany raided and plundered by Napoleon's French army. 

'For every action, there is a reaction', and Germany reacted in 

kind by raiding France in both the First and Second World War. 

Call this 'National Blowback' or 'National Transference 

Reversal' or 'National Identification with The Aggressor' 

-- first with France as a result of

Napoleons's international plundering, then with Germany as a

result of their, generations later, retaliatory plundering against

France and the rest of Europe...'What goes around, comes

around'...Anaximander was the first philosopher to basically

say that....and I view him as one of our oldest, wisest, greatest philosophers....

 'For every action, there is an opposite and equal reaction.'  

I believe Newton said that...

The idea applies pretty well to psychology, philosophy, politics, economics, history, and war as well as physics...

Indeed, Hegel's 'dialectic law' can be viewed as a philosophical re-statement of Newton's third law of motion and classical mechanics...which in turn is a 'formalization' of what

Anaximander basically philosophized about in Ancient

Greece about 570 to 545 BC.

Opposites will either attract each other and/or rebel and 

fight with each other...or both...Most often, both...

The philosophical lineage between that statement 

and the ideas of 'love'and 'hate' are not too distant...

The 'lineage' in philosophy between Anaximander and 

Freud -- between 'life' and 'death' instincts, between

'love' and 'hate', 'love' and 'war' need to be connected...

Money, property and territory, natural resources, sex, love,

betrayal, power, and revenge...'egotism' and 'narcissism' 

all play a dramatic role in the way of the world...

Opposites often if not usually aim to overpower each other

when they are not trying to attract each other, 

complement each other, have sex with each other, 

and/or have offspring with each other...

'Opposites attracting each other' is a movement towards 

both 'biological-philosophical-psychological-political-

religious... diversity' as well as 'biological-philosophical-

psychological-political-religious evolutionary wholism'....

Often, seemingly paradoxically, all of these opposing 

tendencies both 'crash and conflate' with each other...

at the same time...or over time....at least temporarily 

until stability can be restored -- or not --

and the union either 're-stabilizes' or 'breaks apart'...

This is the way of the world...from Anaximander to Hegel to

DGB Quantum Philosophy-Psychology 101...

...........................................................................................................

With Fichte, the 'ego' and the 'I' were essentially the same

thing, the same essence -- except a good argument could be 

made that the 'ego' was, starting with Fichte, in the process 

of becoming a more 'thingified', 'objectified' version of the 'subjectified' but usually, at the same time, 'independently

accountable' meaning of the word 'I"...

Thus, two things were starting to change in Western

thinking with the philosophy of Fichte that we need to pay 

attention to: 1. the 'splitting of internal and external reality'

and the 'dissociation' of 'external reality' as 'something not 

relevant to a subjective philosopher-psychologist's realm of 

study. This is the direction that Husserl and Heidegger would 

take as well as the rest of the 'phenomenologists'. 

Juxtaposed against the philosophy-psychology of these

phenomenologists was the later opposing philosophy-

psychology -- 'The Objectivism' -- philosophy of Ayn Rand 

and extended psychology of Nathaniel Branden);

2. The study -- meaning 'the objectification' -- of 'the I' -- which

would now become 'the ego' (Fichte) and would soon lead to the study of 'the splitting of the ego' (Nietzsche's distinction between 

what I will refer to (although he didn't, but implied  

these two dualistic/dialectic concepts...) as 'The Apollonian

Ego' vs. 'The Dionysian Ego'. Then there was the Scottish

writer, Robert Louis Stevenson's famous novel, published 

in 1886, 'The Strange Case of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde 

('ego' vs. 'alter-ego'), Breuer, Charcot, Janet, Freud's short

use of the concepts of 'will' vs. 'counter-will' (1894), Jung...

Jung

Carl Jung studied with Janet in Paris in 1902,^[23] and was much influenced by him, for example equating what he called a complex with Janet's idée fixe subconsciente.^[24]

Jung's view of the mind as "consisting of an indefinite, because unknown, number of complexes or fragmentary personalities"^[25] built upon what Janet in Psychological Automatismcalled 'simultaneous psychological existences'.^[26]

Schopenhauer started to develop the 'philosophy-psychology' of 'the id' just as Fichte and Nietzsche were starting to develop the philosophy-psychology of the 'ego'.  Freud didn't give much recognition to his philosophical influences but he owned Nietzsche's collected works...And by the time he wrote 'The Ego and The Id' (1923), he had to be pretty familiar with Schopenhauer.

So Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Breuer, Charcot, and Janet -- as well as his 'empirical science influences' in physiology, neurology, biology, biochemistry, genetics, and evolution theory (Brucke, Helmholz, Fechner -- the principle of equilibrium -- Darwin...) -- cemented a 'synthesized' philosophical-scientific-psychological foundation in Freud's mind  for what would inspire Freud to 

create the continually evolving school of 'Psychoanalysis' 

starting from the late 1880s and ending in 1938-1939 -- 

a span of some 50 years.

Beginning about 1894 with 'The Neuro-Psychoses of Defense',

Freud, based on his clinical observations, started to 'split up the psyche', first between 'consciousness' and 'unconsciousness', 

with the 'ego' originally only referring to the conscious part of the personality. Thus, at this point we would have to say that Freud 

made a division between 'The Wholistic Self' and 'The Ego' 

where the ego only reflected the conscious elements 

in the personality.

This idea, Freud would change much later in his career

(formalized in 1923 with his publication of The Ego and The Id), concluding that there wee 'unconscious elements of the ego'

 just like with the 'superego' and the 'id'. But it is important to recognize that, starting in 1894, 'the ego' -- unlike with Fichte,

where ego and The Wholistic Self, i.e., our entire 'I', were

the same thing -- Freud utilized the concept of the ego to

reflect only a particular part of our whole psyche, at the

beginning, only the conscious, 'reality based' part as

opposed to the unconscious 'sexually traumatic' part.

After, 1896, the 'repressed sexually traumatic part' would

become the 'repressed sexually instinctive and impulsive

part' as Freud moved more and more into 'genetic instinctual

theory' as opposed to 'socially traumatic theory'.

 In 1911, (Formulations on The Two Principles of Mental Functioning), Freud drew up another split in the personality that created some new problems -- a distinction between 'the pleasure instincts' and 'the ego instincts'. The pleasure instincts were primarily -- if not exclusively -- about the sexual instincts; in contrast the ego-instincts were about problem-solving, conflict-resolving, and self-preservation. Between

1911 and 1915, Freud would also introduce the competing dualistic/

dialectic concepts of 'pleasure ego' vs. 'reality ego' -- a pair of

concepts that Freud felt he no longer had need for by the time

he wrote 'The Ego and The Id' in 1923. It seems rather obvious

to me that Freud preferred to talk about 'conscious' vs. 'unconscious'

splits rather than 'ego splits' or 'conscious-conscious splits'.

Freud's new concept of 'narcissism' also threw new complications on

all of Freud's work when he wrote 'On Narcissism' in 1914. Unlike

his concepts of 'pleasure ego' and 'reality ego', Freud kept his theory

of narcissism, and advanced, having to find ways to weave it through

what would eventually become his 'life and death instinct theory'

(1920), and his 'Ego, Superego, and Id Theory' (1923) which was a

challenge because his theory of narcissism which was basically a

'libido-plus aggression-plus egotism, plus, plus, plus...theory'

interacted with all his other theories. It was Freud's counter-

reaction to Adler's concept of 'The Masculine Protest' which 

would later become Adler's 'Theory of Inferiority Feelings and Superiority Striving'. Freud's theoryof narcissism (self-egotism) 

was also perhaps an answer to his being called a

'pansexual theorist'. Freud's theory of narcissism both 

partly, if not totally, included, and at the same time, 

extended beyond, his theory of sexuality/libido.

The older Freud got, the greater his abstractions became....

From The Pleasure vs. Reality Principle...to...'Narcissism' 

where The Self becomes 'The Sexual-Egotistic Object'...

to 'Beyond The Pleasure Principle' where 'human existence 

becomes basicallya race between life and death' (very 

existential but 'deterministically-existential' between 

competing 'life and death instincts')... 

So Freud was 'splitting up the instincts' both in the conscious and in the unconscious, or in the ego and in the id, and very briefly the ego was split up to into the 'reality ego' and the 'pleasure ego' which in 1923 would be replaced by the ego and the id.

There was even a brief split between the 'ego-ideal' and the 'superego' (the superego being the 'enforcement agency' for the ego ideal), until the ego ideal disappeared leaving only the superego. But otherwise, Freud left the 'superego' in one piece. Others would not.

Object Relations and Transactional Analysis would divide up the 'superego' into different compartments. For example,

Transactional Analysis, in a simpler technical language, would differentiate between 'The (Internalized) Nurturing Parent'

and 'The (Internalized) Critical Parent'.

Transferred back into Psychoanalysis, this become 'The Splitting of

The Superego' which, in conjunction with 'The Splitting of The

Id', we will delve into in more detail, in Part 2 of this paper.

-- dgb, July 30, 2011, June 15, June 18, 20, 2012....

-- David Gordon Bain

Reasons For A 'Multi-Dialectic Synthesis' Of Selected Contemporary Psychoanalytic and Neo-Psychoanalytic Theories July 30, 2011, June 15, June 18, 2012

July 30th, 2011...June 18, 23, 2012 ....

In this essay here, we will look at 'the splitting of the 

wholistic Fichtean Ego' into 'The Freudian Ego, Id, and 

Superego' -- and some further, still evolving, 'DGB splits 

in the self (psyche, personality, wholistic ego...) that extend 

beyond the Freudian 'triadic' (ego, id, superego) split....

dgb, July 30th, 2011... 

......................................................................................

1. Introduction: Reasons For a Synthesis of Contemporary Psychoanalysis

and Neo-Psychoanalysis into 'DGB Quantum-Dialectic Psychoanalysis'

1. You cannot study human psychology properly without having a

decent background in the study of philosophy -- philosophy

helps to clarify the underlying assumptions of any field of study.

This most certainly includes psychology;

2. You cannot properly study human 'desire' and 'fantasy' without studying human 'traumacy', and visa versa. Desire provides

the 'human engine' with 'gas' to run on; traumacy creates a

'red flag' in our psyche to warn us how to avoid and/or

overcome past traumacies from re-occurring in the future.

All of this is to say that Pre-Classical Psychoanalytic Theory

(Traumacy-Seduction Theory before 1897) cannot exist

without Classical Psychoanalytic Theory (post-1897 Fantasy-

Instinct Theory) -- and visa versa;

3. Similarily, it is just as ridiculous to try to dissociate 'instinct/drive/desire/fantasy theory' (i.e., Classical

Psychoanalysis) from 'Object Relations Theory' (the study

of relationships). as it would be to try to dissociate 'instinct 

theory' from 'the functioning of the ego and its defensive 

functions' against these same instincts/drives/fantasies;

All of this is to say that Classical Psychoanalysis cannot live

without Object Relations Theory any more than it can exist

without pre-Classical Traumacy-Seduction Theory. They are

all connected -- they just need someone creative enough to

intgrate them all together;

4. That's me;

5. Furthermore, Psychoanalysis cannot properly exist without

the external 'critical' and 'nurturing' influence of Adlerian

Psychology, Jungian Psychology, Gestalt Therapy,

Transactional-Analysis, Primal Therapy, Behavioral Therapy, 

Cognitve Therapy, Massonian 'Classical Deconstructionism', 

and so on...They all 'dissociated' themselves from Classical Psychoanalysis -- the 'hub of the wheel' -- but they all are still connected to the same  hub of the Wheel, i.e., Classical 

Psychoanalysis -- it just needs someone creative enough to 

show people how they are all still connected.

6. Again, that is me;

7. In the spirit of Spinoza -- 'Everything is connected.'

8. In the spirit of Schelling -- 'Everything is dialectically 

connected.'

9. 'Everything that happens here on this earth -- and indeed even in the universe as a whole -- is multi-

dialectically, indeed pluralistically, connected -- a hundred, a 

thousand, a million, a billion, a trillion times over. This is what I refer to as being

'quantumly connected'. 

There are a few generalizations that can be derived from this. One of them is that 'bipolar, dialectically interactive, theories are generally better than 'one-sided, unilateral, uni-causal, theories'. Why? Because most things in life function on the basis of the idea and the phenomenonology of 'bipolar, dialectical interaction towards a dialectic, homeostatic balance. 

On the biological level, atoms and molecules come together for the purpose of superior function, and reproduction -- kind of a 'competitive, functional, harmony' -- unless or until this 'dialectic harmony' and 'superior function' ceases to exist, at which point the atoms and molecules start to break up, and go on to create different unions. 

This phenomenon -- this basic premise of nature, 'competitive harmony' or 'harmonious competition' at its best, disharmony at its worst -- seems to follow its way right up through the evolutionary ranks until it gets to man (this assumes that man is at the top of the evolutionary hierarchy which is not a given) -- but still, what seems to be true at the most microscopic level in the domain of the interaction of cells also seems to spread right up to the macroscopic level -- to the level of 'man in evolutionary development in the context of different institutions, corporations, governments, nations, cultures....

In this regard, we can also view this 'governing principle in nature' -- the movement towards homeostatic-dialectic balance -- with alternating moderate and/or extreme imbalances on both sides of the bipolar, dialectically interactive ledger, influencing all of the similar-different realms of biology-physics-chemistry-biochemistry-philosophy-psychology-economics-politics-religion-culture... of man, and man in group interaction. 

Groups come together for the purpose of 'superior function' and break apart on the premise of 'inferior function' and/or the premise of evolutionary growth or stagnancy, either on an individual level, and/or on the larger group level...or both...Union, separation, union, separation...which intermixes with the Hegelian premise of thesis, anti-thesis, synthesis -- a 'synthesis' that often carries a 'superior function' to either of the 'bipolar extremes' that preceded it....just as 'the particle-wavelength integrative (quantum) theory' in physics developed into a superior theory than either of the 'particle theory' or the 'wavelength theory' that preceded it...

By this assumption, 'multi-bipolar, dialectically and/or pluralistically interactive theories' might indeed be 

an even higher 'evolutionary step upwards from the 

'single bipolar, dialectically interactive theories 

that preceded them. 

A 'Gestalt-Adlerian-Psychoanalytic (GAP)' Integrative 

Theory, for example, may show 'superior functions' to 

either of the three paradigms taken separately, 

and an 'Attachement-Object Relations-Self and Socal-

Pre-Classical, Classical, and Post-Classical-Humanistic-

Existential Integrative Psychoanalytic Theory might 

show 'superior functions' to any of the separate models, 

theories, paradigms, taken separately....

Such is the logic of Hegel's Hotel, and 'DGB Quantum-Dialectic

Psychoanalysis'.   

From this idea of being

'quantumly connected', which means... putting all of these

different academic-scholastic and clinical-therapeutic

influences and ideas together, you have what I am doing

here in this section of Hegel's Hotel devoted to the study of Psychoanalysis, which I will differentiate from all other

partly attached, partly detached, 'schools' of Psychoanalysis. 

indeed, this becomes what I

would view as a 'Super Integrative' School of Psychoanalysis -- 

unofficial and completely unorthodox in that it lies outside 

the official boundaries of any Psychoanalytic Institute -- 

and yet often, ridiculed and/or aggressively confronted 

unorthodox schools of psychology -- or philosophy or politics 

or religion -- eventually make it to 'The Establishment' -- 

assuming they are good enough, and strong enough to 

survive enough criticisms -- and to be able to demonstrate 

'superior function' -- to the point where they are eventually

accepted by The Establishment, The Status-Quo....

Change always 

brings different degrees of 'resistance' with it, 

but, generally speaking, the superior function and 

performance of a new, integrative theory will outlast 

and conquer the resistance --  

'the narcissistic Pit bull bite' --  of all less integrative theories that 

need to be left behind because of 'inferior function'. 

Not always, but generally speaking, time 

and superior performance win the day.... That was Hegel's

under-riding, or over-riding, premise in his classic

masterpiece, 'The Phenomenology of Spirit'....

Not all theories bring with them 'superior performance' 
but generally speaking, 
they will at least bring with them a 'different angle', a 

different perspective, a different way of looking at things, a 
different paradigm -- that may at some point be encompassed by 'the 
larger whole' -- a larger theory or paradigm that does demonstrate
 'superior performance'. 

Examples of this are 'The Reform Party' and 

'The Green Party' here in Canada -- The Reform Party integrated 

into The Progressive Conservative Party, and The Green Party 

continues to evolve....

Before that, it was 'The NDP' (National Democrat Party) 

which is now an established political party here in Canada. 

10. I call my unofficial-unorthodox-underground school of 
philosophy-psychology-and-psychoanalysis: 
'DGB Quantum Philosophy-Psychology -- and Psychoanalysis'. 

What I have stated above is the over-riding, or under-riding,

epistemological and ethical ideal of 'Hegel's Hotel' 

My particular additions and contributions to Hegel's Hotel can be viewed 
as 'the new elements' of 'DGB Quantum Psychoanalysis'(in the larger 
context of 'DGB Quantum Philosophy-Psychology-Politics...) 
that are in the process of being 

integrated with the older

elements from other schools of philosophy and/or psychology that

I have kept.  Obviously, anyone and everyone with a different individual
perspective than mine -- would create a 'different' 

'brand' or 'franchise' of Hegel's Hotel....

-- dgb, June 18, 2012...

-- David Gordon Bain