|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q.
The Unconscious and the Conscious
I'm interested in learning more about the unconscious and the way in which it relates to the conscious. Why does it seem to be such a reclusive character, unwilling to announce its wishes and defense stratagems to the conscious mind - why the premium on not being found out and on doing its work in private, sending its message in code? Can it be trusted (when, for a change, its wishes are known), or must its work always be suspect (as in reaction formation, where it gives orders to behave in an exact opposite way to its own wishes)? Is it a person's truest identity, the real "you," and if so, why the secretiveness or shyness? What goals are served by its insistence on always operating from a private place, like the Wizard of Oz? Who really runs things, the unconscious or the conscious identity, and why doesn't it just announce its orders rather than setting up a "conflict?" Why does unconscious material remain unconscious, as if it can see out, but we can't see in (without about $100k worth of psychoanalysis? There must be some terribly important reason for this arrangement, but what is it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q.
Double Bind
For purposes of my question, I understand a "double bind" to be a set of inherently conflicting instructions or requests, such that to follow one is to breach the other. The recipient cannot win; anything he does will violate one or the other, at best. I want to try to understand the double bind and the double binder, and to learn something about how to deal with both. Among my questions in that regard are: (1) is the double bind formulated by the conscious or the unconscious (and, therefore, can the unconscious think, plan a strategy, especially a devious or tricky strategy?) (2) what else can a frequent use of the double bind be but a strategy to confuse and frustrate, and (3) does it often have a discernible goal for the conscious awareness, such as to achieve some hidden or otherwise difficult agenda, or is any agenda just an emotional matter of which there is no conscious awareness? How may the "bindee" best hope to deal with the double bind treatment: (1) by patiently explaining to the double binder that one cannot possibly comply with one of her wishes without denying the other (so she will be made aware of what she is doing, if she wasn't already so in the first place), (2) by just telling the binder to buzz off, he doesn't have time to deal with such silly conflicting requests, or (3) something else? Can you recommend any sources of information on practical aspects of dealing with double bind behavior?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Q.
The Unconscious
There are some questions I have in attempting to learn how to think about the unconscious and its behavior: I gather that we shouldn't always allow ourselves be controlled by the unconscious, but that it may in some circumstances be best to heed its counsel. How does one tell which to do? In current psychoanalytic thought, is the unconscious thought to (a) itself, on its own level, be conscious of its own existence (as opposed to the conscious mind being aware of it), and primarily looking out for the safety thereof, (b) be capable of intelligent thought, (c) have other characteristics that tend to classify it as an independent entity with its own well-organized goals, as opposed to a mere servo-mechanism of its host, and (d) most often, be a friend, an enemy or just a separate entity with its own agenda? Is the unconscious thought sometimes to be wiser and more apt to prescribe behavior that is in the individual's best interest than is the the conscious mind, so that we should sometimes "listen to the unconscious?" If so, then how do we decide if the "advice" we are receiving from the unconscious is to be doubted, followed or just rejected out of hand?
|
|
|
|
Q.
The Unconscious and Chaos Theory
I have previously corresponded with you in efforts to conceptualize and better understand the unconscious. Once, I inquired whether the unconscious might be an independent entity, able to think, make plans and strategies and the like. You responded that it would be more productive to think of the unconscious not as an "it," but as an ubiquitous part of the mind. I consulted some of the sources you suggested and more, and find that "the hurryier I go, the behinder I get." Just recently, I have been reading sources on chaos theory, systems and complexity (mostly for other purposes), and find more questions about the nature of the unconscious. There, the reader is told that certain opposites, such as the conscious and the unconscious, are mutually interdependent and that one could not exist without the other. Each is in a cycle of creating the other, as chaos and order generally are. Also, that there are elements of the unconscious within the conscious and vice-versa, and that unconscious material is always in the cycle of becoming conscious and vice-versa. And, that the unconscious is a "self-organizing system," and that one characteristic of such systems is that they seem to follow a Darwinian effort to survive, much as better-understood living creatures do. Most of what I am saying comes from Waldrop's book "Complexity" (Touchstone, 1992), but I understand that what I have said is generally accepted systems theory. So, would you say that chaos theory, complexity and systems theory are appropriate vehicles for the study of the unconscious (as opposed to more physical phenomena)? If so, what do you think of the idea of the unconscious as a "self organizing system" with an instinct for survival? If it has such a property, wouldn't it likely be able to hatch schemes to assure its idea of survival, such as psychological defenses?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|