Updated and modified June 12, Aug. 3, Aug. 10, 18, 2012....dgb
Concepts, concepts, concepts....They will drive you crazy if you are not careful where they take you...Many concepts have completely arbitrary, man-made boundaries which is fine if you treat them as such -- not so fine if you think that they are defining and describing something real and tangible. Ask David Hume about that. (You can't of course. He's not around to answer us.)
The concept of the 'liver' has a 'thing-in-itself' that it is referring to -- a 'real, physical, tangible liver' that a surgeon, if he were to open us up, could look at, examine, touch, and hopefully put back into its proper place again, for normal functioning.
The 'id' has no such tangible, physical boundaries. We are dealing here with a different type of concept -- one that reflects our 'metaphysical' world of 'alleged things, structures, and/or processes that are invisible to the eye', and thus, whose very existence is much more open to skeptical controversy as contrasted against the types of physical things we can see, touch, and hold onto in our daily lives, or like our 'liver' that a surgeon could see and touch if he were to open us up. This is the difference between our physical and metaphysical world.
Now, since our senses are limited and imperfect -- especially as we get older! -- any image we hold of even a physical object is going to be limited and imperfect -- thus, the need for a distinction between what Kant called our 'noumenal (objective-beyond-our-senses) world' and our 'phenomenal (subjective-within the realm of our senses) world'.
The first world (the noumenal-objective, physical world) is verifiable by our senses (our subjective-phenomenal world) -- this includes objects or things like 'stones', 'sticks', 'cars', 'glass', 'rabbits', etc. and processes like 'water flowing'; the second world (our metaphysical world) is speculated and theorized based on our inferences, generalizations, associations, and/or assumptions (i.e., our reasoning and/or 'faith' process) that takes us beyond the limits of our physical world -- this includes concepts like 'God', 'the id', 'the superego', 'the ego'...
But here is the kicker. Even the 'physical objects' that we can see in front of our face still have 'characteristics' or 'elements of their being or becoming' that we 'don't know about' or at least 'fully know about'. And this can create an 'unreliability' problem between the 'object or process that we think we know but don't' and 'the object or process as it really is, and/or as it really is becoming, evolving'... Our 'conceptual representation' of the object or process does not completely fit the 'real, objective, noumenal essence' (what it is now in all of its different dimensions) or its teleology (what it is in the process of becoming or evolving into like a caterpillar that is in the process of evolving into a butterfly).
Now, if you followed me there, I just made an epistemological distinction that Kant didn't -- and this is where I think Kant got into trouble. Specifically, the word-concept 'know' is a relative term that has a 'range of meaning' that can range anywhere from being very 'anally stringent' to much more 'loosey-goosey' or anywhere in between. For example, I can say that 'I know' my girlfriend of 12 years but there will always be some parts of her that I may, or will, 'never know' or 'never completely know' about her -- and visa versa. We all have 'private-shadow' areas of our personality that we may not even completely 'know' about ourselves, and/or that we may not want to share with even our most intimate one or ones...Or some things you may share with your closest friend that you may not share with your wife or husband...
Also, if a car is speeding towards me, it is imperative for the sake of my life that I can 'see' the car -- and walk, run, or jump out of harm's way -- before it can hit me, especially if the driver is distracted or something and does not 'see' me... This 'knowledge' of the close presence of a speeding car I 'need to know' for the sake of self-preservation. In contrast, I may not know that there is a 'rust spot' on the far side of the car that I cannot see -- but relative to my 'self-preservation' -- why would I care? I would only care about this 'rust spot' in a different context completely if I was thinking about buying this same car. Thus, in this regard, a distinction can be made between the 'lighter' and 'darker' 'side of the moon' -- i.e., that part of an object, thing, or process that we 'do know very well' and that part of an object, thing, or process, that we 'don't know very well'. And the complication here is that often we don't know the difference -- can't or kant know the difference -- or are too blinded by our own narcissistic complexes and/or biases to be able to properly distinguish the difference. It is this type of thing that prompted Nietzsche to write: 'There are no such things as facts, just interpretations'.
This brings out the distinction between the 'noumenal' part of things -- even physical things -- that we think we know everything about, and don't. Thus, every physical, noumenal thing has a 'darker side of the moon' -- something about its 'essence' or 'teleology' that we may not know. So in this regard, even 'physical things' can have 'metaphysical properties' about them that are beyond the capabilities and/or knowledge of our subjective, phenomenal, sensory and/or interpretive system of investigation.
And the completely 'metaphysical things, objects, processes' -- like 'God' and 'the id' and 'the superego' may have no existence at all or alternatively might be viewed as 'conceptual conveniences'...where the 'conceptual boundaries' that we may be drawing up and around a certain 'alleged metaphysical phenomenon' may be completely in our own imagination. David Hume and B.F Skinner had a lot to say about these 'invisible concepts' -- mainly or entirely, that 'they didn't exist'.
Perhaps many concepts are simply 'fabricated semantic assumptive generalizations and conveniences'. With these types of concepts, we may need to ask ourselves how much they are helping or hindering us in our attempt to understand what we are trying to understand...like, for example, the inherent psychological reason for 'cognitively pre-meditated' human behavior in one context, and 'passionately impulsive and out of control' human behavior in another context....
Anyway, this is about as deep into epistemology as I wish to get -- my line of thinking here connects Kant with Korzybski (call it 'Kantian-Korzbskian integrative thinking if you wish), and it leads to the two important distinctions: 1. between an 'observable, physical phenomenon' -- like a 'waterfalls' or a 'stone' -- vs. an 'alleged, metaphysical phenomenon' -- like 'God' or 'the id' or 'the ego' or 'the superego'; and 2. between 'the lighter' and 'darker' (shadow) side of every phenomenon, object, thing, process, whether visible or invisible to the naked eye.
A 'concept' is a man-made verbal and/or written representation of the physical-structural-dynamic-phenomenon we are observing and/or behind the 'alleged, metaphysical structure and/or dynamic process' that we are 'inferring' from our observations and then putting 'conceptual boundaries' around the 'metaphysical presence' that we are inferring (like 'God' or 'the id') and then taking this one step further by choosing a 'word' or a 'term' as a verbal or written short form/cut -- this is the written or verbal 'symbol' that we use to label the concept that we have defined and/or described with concept-boundaries and which is allegedly linked to the 'assumed/inferred metaphysical phenomenon' that we are talking about, or on a more down-to-earth level, the 'observable, physical phenomenon' that we can point to and say, 'See, that is what I am talking about!'
You kant do that with metaphysically assumed phenomena like 'God' or 'the id' -- you can only give 'circumstantial evidence' as to why you think these 'metaphysical phenomena' exist. Hume would laugh at you and say -- did say -- in effect, 'If you can't point to me what you are talking about, then you are talking rubbish! Commit your concept and its 'invisible phenomenon' that it represents to flames!'
Hume was a little extreme in this regard -- he wouldn't even accept the existence of our 'Self'' -- again, just an 'abstractive generalized-assumption' in his mind Again, rubbish! However, Hume's 'empirical extremism' eventually collapsed under the weight of its own extreme assumptions -- not everything that we can see exists (illusions, mirages, 'double images' when our proper vision has left the building... ) , and not everything that exists we can see (like 'viruses' and 'bacteria'....) However, Hume did help us to more clearly recognize and distinguish between our 'observations' on the one hand, and our 'assumptive inferences and generalizations' from our observations on the other hand -- a distinction that would become one of the main features of Alfred Korzybski's 'Science and Sanity' and 'General Semantics' a little more than a century and a half later (the 1770s vs. the 1930s).
Did you get all that?
Our metaphysical world is a world of higher and higher abstractions that may or may not even be true -- this is our assumptive world, maybe even our mythological world, full of concepts and theories that at best make our life easier to comprehend and live, at worst, may cause us more trouble than they are worth. Concepts of this nature can be thrown into the garbage at a moment's notice if they don't work well enough to justify their existence.
As long as we don't take our ideology too seriously, too narcissistically, too righteously and aggressively -- 'hanging onto it clenchingly with a pitbull's bite' -- only to go down with our bite when our one-sided and/or imperfect ideology ends up betraying us in the end. Laying us out on our own sword.
This 'conceptual-narcissistic-righteousness' is often the sign of a 'defensive ego and/or superego at work'.....'myths', 'rituals', concepts, theories, paradigms that we have more than a little bit too much invested in, which, in turn, spark our 'righteous indignation'....'The lady doth protest too much, methinks.'....
The pitbull defense may intimidate some people, even intimidate a lot of people, but in the end, 'truth and/or better representation -- better multi-bipolar, multi-dialectic representation' usually wins out because it is generally closer to the way the world actually works (or better works) -- i.e., on the principle of 'homeostatic-dialectic-balance'.
Every unilateral concept, every unilateral theory, every unilateral paradigm, carries with it, the seeds of its own self-destruction. Why? Because it is based on the principle of 'unilateral ideology' as opposed to the 'multi-dialectic' or 'quantum' ideology that is closer to the way that the world actually usually works... 'Multi-dialectic-quantum integrative ideology' is the type of ideology that we are developing here -- a type of ideology that is flexible enough to change or modify its boundaries -- and to map out 'multiple bi-polarities' -- when the phenomenal process dynamics of the way the world is actually working strongly suggests that this is exactly what we should do in order to keep our representation as accurate and up-to-date as we possibly can.
This has always been the strong point of science but even science can get caught up in its own assumptions, stereotypes -- and narcissistic, righteous biases (the effect of 'narcissistic capitalism' twisting and perverting science with the covert goal of bowing down to 'unethical corporate profiteering').
'Integrative multiple bi-polarity concept, model, theory, and paradigm-making' is the preferred DGB way to go....because it synthesizes and synergizes one-sided extremist, righteous and narcissistc ideologies...
The 'two valued', 'either/or', 'black or white' mentality can be a sign of a deeper, underlying insecurity, instability, 'neurotic anxiety', 'existential anxiety', 'borderline personality', 'schizoid personality'....the concept/theory/paradigm that we are holding onto with the pitbull's bite might be like the 'finger in the dyke' that is holding back a 'damful of fended off subconscious or preconscious panic-anxiety'.
I am certainly not the first theorist -- nor even the first psychoanalytic theorist -- to challenge Freud's concept of 'the id'. There is no 'id' in Object Relations Theory unless we are switching back and forth between Classic Freudian Theory and Object Relations and/or Self Theory. Or trying to integrate the two which is what I am doing in my work. But, in my view, some changes need to be made to 'the id' to make it more a 'functionally viable' concept for the 21st century...
There are a number of problems with the way that Freud conceptualized the id. Let me see if I can properly articulate my complaints.
Firstly, in creating the concept of the id, Freud 'strangulated the unconscious' -- 'reducing' it mainly to the id -- meaning no room for 'traumatic memories' among other things.
What happened to traumacy -- and memories and learning in general? Where are the 'transference templates'? Where are the 'traumacy-transference templates'? I was told that about 80 percent of contemporary psychoanalysts practice some form of traumacy theory today. Well, if that is so -- or anything close to it -- then that would suggest also that about 80 percent of contemporary psychoanalysts today are not practicing 'Classical' Psychoanalysis -- which by Freud's outdated conceptuology and theorizing -- should be locked up as he created it in a Vienna and/or British Victorian Museum. Let's just say that it should be locked up in 'The Freud Archives'. No modern day psychoanalyst wants to touch 'Classical' Psychoanalysis anyway unless they want to get their fingers rapped -- or significantly worse -- for doing it. That is like trying to re-write 'The Bible' of Psychoanalysis.
Most people -- students, professional, laypersons alike -- know that Classical Psychoanalysis is badly outdated. Using Classical Psychoanalysis today as Freud taught it to us up to 1939 is like keeping a Model T Ford on the road -- and worse -- trying to pass it off as a 2012 Mercedes Benz.
Quite simply -- Classical Psychoanalysis needs to be either properly updated or tucked away in The Freud Archives. Classical Psychoanalysis -- as we all can read it through Strachey's 24 Standard Edition of Freud's Complete Works -- is a historical masterpiece, even with all its 'patriarchal biases' and 'Freudian neurotic flaws'. But we wouldn't try to take one of the first airplanes ever made and take the risk of trying to fly it today -- at least not unless we had a very good parachute and protective armor on! Or a death wish!
I was trying to summarize the various problems with Freud's concept of 'the id'.
1. Freud falsely equated the id with most of the unconscious which was a mistake. There are numerous other parts of the unconscious/subconscious/preconscious that need to be discussed.
2. Freud argued that the id was by definition 'unconscious'. Another mistake. The id has 'subconscious', 'preconscious', and conscious elements -- just like the ego and superego. In fact, the ego, superego, and id should all be viewed as consisting of a contrasting network of 'ego-states' -- i.e., the 'superego states'; the 'ego states', and 'the idian underego states';
3. Freud wrote that 'the ego' was born from 'the id' -- conversely, and dialectically speaking, we could also say that the id was born from the ego, just like the superego was born from the ego -- in fact, all three networks of ego-states -- the id, the ego, and the superego -- can be viewed as belonging to 'The Wholistic Spinozian-Fichtean-Hegelian Multi-Integrative-Dialectic Ego or Self'...
It is from these objections that my rather crazy-sounding 'Shadow-id-Ego' concept is born...
'Shadow' because our 'id-ego' is born in the 'subconscious shadows' of our personality...Our personality evolves from Chaos, Anaxamander's Apeiron, Nietzsche's Abyss -- having been ejected from our mother's womb and facing in Rank's conceptuology -- 'our first primal form of (pre-Oedipal) separation anxiety' -- and our need to survive. Survival requires basically 7 needs -- or at least these are the seven basic needs that I have formulated: 1. safety; 2. nurturing; 3. nourishment; 4. detoxification; 5. rootedness; 6. relatedness; 7. transcendence.
Born from the womb -- and then 'evicted into' the 'black hole' of 'separation from the womb', separation from our primal rootedness -- baby learns very quickly for the first time about the paradoxes, dichotomies, and extreme bipolarities of life -- with death precariously lingering around the edge of baby's unfulfilled primal needs.
This is the starting-point of 'individuation' and 'individuated evolution' -- a movement from helplessness and dependence to a state of greater and greater individuation and self-control...assuming everything goes well...
The 'Shadow-Id-Ego' then, is born from a state of helplessness and dependence, and starts to learn the first means of 'hopeful control' that it has at its disposal -- i.e., 'crying'. And so the individuated evolution process begins....
All of this is to say that 'The Shadow-Id-Ego' is an active, psycho-dynamic part of The Wholistic Spinozian-Fichtean-Hegelian Ego-Self that is active in both the conscious and the subconscious parts of the personality -- just like the ego and superego -- and should not be viewed as simply being like a 'container' or 'reservoir' that holds the 'life and 'death', 'sexual' and 'aggressive' instincts.... A 'container' is 'lifeless' whereas an 'ego-state' -- even an unconscious one -- is 'lifeful'. The id is better defined as an 'uncivil ego-state that jumps out at us (and/or others) from the Shadows, sometimes in scary fashion both for us and/or others. That, in a nutshell, is the reason for my 'transferring' Freud's 'Id' into my own version of The 'Shadow-Id-Ego'.
More, later...
Saturday, June 9th, Tuesday June 12, 2012...
