Let's start with this little summary of 'the id' in relation to 'the ego' and 'superego' as found on Wikipedia...
.................................................................................................
Id, ego and super-ego are the three parts of the psychic apparatus defined in Sigmund Freud's structural model of the psyche; they are the three theoretical constructs in terms of whose activity and interaction mental life is described. According to this model of the psyche, the id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends (my emphasis); the ego is the organised, realistic part; and the super-ego plays the critical and moralising role.[1]
Even though the model is "structural" and makes reference to an "apparatus", the id, ego and super-ego are functions of the mind rather than parts of the brain and do not correspond one-to-one with actual somatic structures of the kind dealt with by neuroscience.
The concepts themselves arose at a late stage in the development of Freud's thought: the "structural model" (which succeeded his "economic model" and "topographical model") was first discussed in his 1920 essay "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" and was formalised and elaborated upon three years later in his "The Ego and the Id". Freud's proposal was influenced by the ambiguity of the term "unconscious" and its many conflicting uses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Id,_ego_and_super-ego
................................................................................................
The id is the set of uncoordinated instinctual trends...
..........................................................................
Allow for the fact here that man -- 'theorizing man' -- generally has a tendency or an 'instinct' if you wish to turn things like 'biological processes' into 'theoretical structures'.
Like the Wikipedia piece above stated -- and I will extend their logic -- if you did an 'autopsy' on the brain, you would not find an 'id'. Therefore, when we use the term 'id' -- or 'ego' or 'superego' for that matter -- we are dealing with a 'visual model' 'and theoretical metaphors' that are designed to help us understand the 'psycho-dynamic processes of the mind' but at the same time, that do not have 'empirical biological structures' that they are representing. We are dealing with 'fictional as if' models that can still be very functionally useful even though you can't point to a part of the brain and say -- 'There is the id.'
With that 'caveat emptor', let us continue.
Theorists love 'generalizations' and 'abstractions' (and 'assumptions' and 'reductionisms') -- that is what they build their theories from.
Certain words are inherently troublesome like 'repression' and 'the unconscious' and 'instincts'. We could argue for the rest of our time here together about what is an 'instinct' and what is 'not an instinct'. In my opinion, it is better not to take this discussion too seriously. Use the term 'instinct' flexibly -- or not at all. If you get too 'anal-retentive' on this point of definition, we will become mired in quicksand.
Here is how I wish to define the 'ID' (turning it into an acronym) -- as the 'entire set of coordinated and/or uncoordinated 'Impulsive Drives' at work in the personality at any point in time -- operating on either a conscious and/or subconscious level -- including separate or combined levels of biological, psychological, social, political, economic, religious, artistic... motivation.'
Now there are two follow-up questions to this definition that may seem silly but which need to be given an answer: 1. Does the ID have a 'home' in the psyche or does it just 'free-float' in, say, a 'hundred different particular 'impulsive drives', that may move anywhere and everywhere in the psyche?
I say that the ID has a 'home' in the psyche -- the 'starting-point' of all 'instinctual and/or impulsive drives' -- and that 'home' can be likened to 'the engine room' on a ship, the 'energy source' of all impulsive drive human motivation. Let's give this 'home' a name and call it 'the ID Reservoir' or 'The ID Room', which we will locate in the 'subconscious' of the personality. The ID Room can be viewed as being 'the most primitive and uncivil part of the human mind-brain-psyche (mbp), the starting-point of the evolution of man, the starting point of the mbp of a newborn infant -- and this idea basically follows 'Classic Freudian Conceptuology'.
The Ego evolves out of The ID. But the ID keeps its original 'home' in the mbp -- and its original function -- 'Impulsive-Drive-Satisfaction' (IDS).
Once the Ego has fully evolved, it generally follows 'the reality principle' as a more prioritized and sacred value than the potentially self-destructive inherent danger of 'the unbridled pleasure principle' -- that, if we are not careful, can start to lead us quickly or slowly down the path of 'the death instinct'. This is the path that the ID will invariably choose -- left on its own accord and to its own devices -- without the 'safeguarding defenses' of the Ego.
More Classic Freudian Conceptuology simply re-stated by yours truly -- with one addition so far -- the addition of 'The ID Reseroir' or 'The ID Room'. This is meant to help clarify some ambiguity in Classic Freudian Theory.
Now I am going to introduce another distinction that Freud never made, and because he never made it, it introduced some confusion in later (post-1914) Freudian Theory.
The confusion was created by Freud's formal introduction in 1914 of the concept of 'narcissism' -- a very valuable conceptual addition to Psychoanalysis -- but how did it fit into Freud's overall conceptual theory? Basically, Classical Psychoanalysis as it had been developing before his introduction of the concept of 'narcissism' -- was thrown into disarray by this new concept.
Freud has been criticized for being a 'biological reductionist'. He has been crticized for his 'pansexualism'. One of the first things that Jung did when he separated from Freud was he 'loosened up' Freud's definition of the concept of 'libido'. For Freud, this concept meant 'sexual energy' -- plain and simple. Jung changed the definition of 'libido' to mean 'life energy' meaning more than just 'sexual energy'. Freud wanted no part in this change of definition.
Another term that Freud used along the same lines as 'libido' was the term 'Eros'.
..............................................................................
Eros (Ancient Greek: Ἔρως, "Intimate Love"; UK: /ˈɪərɒs/, US: /ˈerɑːs/), in Greek mythology, was the primordial god of sexual love and beauty. He was also worshipped as a fertility deity. His Roman counterpart was Cupid ("desire"). In the Theogony Hesiod makes him a primordial god, while in some myths, he was the son of the deities Aphrodite and Ares.
.............................................................................................................
So Freud went through a whole host of stages in his 'dualistic and dialectic theorizing' where he distinguished between the 'pleasure' and 'reality' principles (and 'egos')....the 'sex' and 'aggressive' instincts', the 'life' and 'death' instincts...And stuck in the middle between Freud's earlier and later conceptuology (i.e., from 'the pleasure principle' to 'beyond the pleasure principle'...and his distinction between the 'life' and 'death' instincts, 1920, came his rather 'intrusive' concept of 'narcissism' -- and what did it mean relative to all the other concepts?
Now (as in 1914 and afterwards) Freud was talking about 'narcissism' as opposed to 'sex' being the 'primal energy' of man...And then there was the 'death' and 'aggressive' instinct ('Thantos' as opposed to 'Eros') ...How did it all fit together? Freud lacked clarity in bringing all these concepts into line with each other...leaving us in at least partial if not total confusion...
So let me strive for my own clarity here in a way that makes sense to me...in a mixture of Jungian and Classical Freudian conceptuology...
We all start our life with a combination of 'life' (Eros or libido) and 'death' (Thantos) energy. The second we take our first breath of life this 'dualistic and dialectic process' is under way as 'oxygen' supports both our 'life energy' ('oxygenation') and our 'death energy' ('oxidation') at the same time. Oxygenation supports the ongoing process of life. Oxidation, on the other hand -- the 'negative, destructive side effect' of oxygenation -- supports the beginning of the 'death or dying process'...'Oxygen' is a 'bipolar product' causing opposite 'bipolar reactions' in our mind and bodies that support and enhance both life and death. So we have our first support of Freud's 'life' and 'death' instincts...All the talk -- and money -- today is about 'newer and better anti-oxidants' that are purported (rightly or wrongly) asserted to slow down the process of oxidation, aging, and dying... Thus, eventually, once science triumphs over God or our Creator, we will all live forever!
Let's divide Freud's 'life instincts' into the following categories which overlap each other...
1. 'The Narcissistic Instincts' (egotism, self-survival, self-enhancement, self-esteem, selfishness, self-absorption, greed...some of which are 'normal' and 'healthy', others of which are more or less 'pathological' and 'unhealthy';
2. 'The Hedonistic or Pleasure or Dionysian Instincts' (sensuality, sexuality, eating, drinking, partying, celebrating ...);
3. 'The Nurturing or Altruistic Instincts' (encouragement, love, caring, compassion, empathy, sympathy, concern...)
4. The 'Ethical, Righteous, or Apollonian Instincts' (ethics, morality, fairness, justice, equality and equal rights...).
Now by my logic, for every instinct we have, we all have an 'ego-function' and an 'specialized ego structure' whose role is like a 'special interest lobbyist group' that is designed to hammer home to 'The Central Ego' the importance of that particular line of 'instincts' or 'needs' or 'ego functions'...
Thus, from the five main 'life instincts' and 'ego functions' of the psyche, I have created five main 'Ego-Structures':
1. The Nurturing-Altruistic (and/or Romantic) Ego;
2. The Narcissistic Ego;
3. The Hedonistic-Dionysian Ego;
4. The Righteous-Apollonian Ego;
5. The Central Mediating and Executive Ego.
And each of these differrent 'ego-states' can be split into two based on the principle of 'power' and 'suppression' or 'superiorty' and 'inferiority' or 'topdog' and 'underdog' or 'superego' and 'underego' complexes...That now gives us 10 different 'ego structures and/or states'...like a 'Parliament' inside the Personality....
So our 11th 'Room' or 'Structure' in the psyche if you will is 'The Parliament Negotiating Room' or worded otherwise, 'The Psycho-Drama Room'.
Below this, and moving into our subconscious....we have:
Room 12: 'The Dream (and Nightmare) Weaver's Room';
Room 13: 'The Shadow-ID or SID Room';
Room 14: 'The Transference Memory and Fantasy Complex Template';
Room 15: 'The Primal-Archaic (Gods, Archetypes, Myths, and Symbols) Template';
Room 16: The Genetic Potential (Blueprint) Self;
Room 17: Anaximander's Apeiron and/or Nietzsche's Abyss (Chaos, Darkness, amd Lack of Organization, Power and Control, Loss of Self...and Self-Control).
..........................................................................................
I think we will leave it at that for today...
-- dgb, June 11th, 2011,
-- David Gordon Bain
