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.
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.
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
'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'
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.
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
