The Myth of the Unconscious
We begin transcribing a statement of Freud about
the unconscious. The transcription becomes necessary, as it does
not exist in Freud's works a definition of the unconscious, in
spite of the fact that he had introduced it as the conceptual
nucleus of psychoanalysis [J.Laplanche, and J.B.Pontals - Vocabulaire
de la Psychanalyse - Paris - Presses Universitaires de France
- 1967 - p.197/9]; in this lack of conceptualization of the unconscious,
it is already clear the absence of methodological foundation,
episthemological preocupation, and the methaphysical implications
of the freudian theory:
"The psychoanalysis leads to the statement that the psychic
processes are unconscious and to compare its perception through
the consciousness with the perception of the external world through
the sense organs. This comparison will help us to enlarge our
knowledge. The psychoanalitic hypothesis of the unconscious psychic
activity constitute, to a certain extent, a continuation of the
animism, which use to show us always loyal imagens of our consciousness,
and on the other hand, the rectification done by Kant of the
theory of the external perception. Just as Kant led us to consider
the subjective condictionability of our perception and to not
consider it equal to the incognoscible perceived, the psychoanalysis
invite us to not confuse the conscious perception with the unconscious
psychic process, which is its object. In reality, the psychic
do not need to be as we perceive it. But we must expect that
the rectification of the internal perception do not offer so
many difficulties as the external perception does, and that the
internal object be less incognoscible than the external world.
- S.Freud, Metapsicologia, in Obras Completas, Volumen I. Madrid,
Biblioteca Nueva, 1948, p.1045".
It is clear in the transcription above, the dualistic view, the
methaphysic, be it in the afirmation of internal and external
reality, or in the admission of the incognoscibility of the world.
The freudian position becomes more intelligible if we remind
the explanations by Kant relating knowledge. Kant [The Critique
of Pure Reason - Chicago - Encyclopedia Britannica - 1952 - Great
Books] considered the knowledge of the world, knowledge of the
things, as impossible as apprehension of the phenomenon, he use
to say that the thing in itself can not be known, and it could
only be known through categories which would systhematize it.
Hence the negation of time and space as existent realities, cognizables,
and their status as categories of knowledge. This kantian view
justifys the postulation of the unconscious. To Freud, the man
in itself, the conscious activity, cannot be known; the only
way it can be known is as a representation of an unconcious reality
(projection), from where comes the unconscious as logical category
which allows the clarification of the human complexity. In the
same way, in the concept of atemporality of the unconscious system,
we find kantian influencies. In an unitarian and objective view,
there is no way to maintain this position, it is not possible
to admit atemporal existence. Such admission would means the
negation of the whole order of the universe. Besides and because
of these dualisms, of metaphysical influence, the idea, the postulation
of the unconscious, cannot be verified, confirmed; the psychoanalysis
justifies itself saying that the unconscious is a logical constructum,
explaining in this manner, the impossibility of experimental
verification, but, on the other side, creating another impasse,
namely, being a constructum, the whole idea of unconscious system,
in the topic point of view is negated, that is, it is notpossible
to speak of Id, Ego, Super-Ego, conscious and pre-conscious as
psychic instancies anymore. There is no way out. It is a myth,
or in the words of van den Berg: "The conscious of the therapist
is the unconscious of the patient" [J.H.van den Berg - O
Paciente Psiquiátrico - São Paulo - Mestre Jou
- 1966 - p.120], and of the same author, in the same book: "the
phenomenologist never needs hypothesis. The hypothesis raises
when the description of reality ends prematurely. Phenomenology
is the description of reality".
At this point, in the phenomenological-gestalt approach, the
unconscious is view as a postulation, a myth, and from this position
we will consider it.
What is myth? The myth is an idea, and therefore, the problem
placed is to know from where this idea comes from. We enter in
the episthemological level of the question. We particularize
our concept of myth, saying that it is an idea resultant of the
search of explanation of a determinate phenomenon, or better,
the myth is an explication of a determinate phenomenon; in this
terms, the myth is almost synonimous of a postulate, of a hypothesis,
of a dogma, of a phantasy and even of the logical thinking. Finding
this last synonymity, things become absurd, because if myth is
equal to logical thinking, how can it be myth? Or even: what
does characterize one and the other? To answer this it is necessary
to place the problem of what is logical thinking: it is the one
resultant of the apprehension of the relations which configure
a phenomenon, being than, explanation of the phenomenon; the
myth is also the explanation of the phenomenon, but this explanation
is a result of onesided and distorted aprehensions. So, everything
consists of knowing why the unilateralizations and distortions
occur; explaining this, it is possible to understand the genesis,
the essence of the mythical structure independently of the area
which supports it.
Imagine a perceiver and an object to be perceived in a determinate
space. Think of this situation admiting screens between the two
localized points; the situation of the screens has more or less
importance on account of the distorted perspectives as quantity;
qualitatively there will always be distortion and impossibility
of configuration. Observing this (the plastic situatedness of
the mythical perceptions), we will be able of understanding the
synonymity stated before and conceptualize myth as a priori.
This a priori develops itself in religious structure (the dogma),
in social structure (the divers alienated institutions), etc.
In the psychological sphere, this problem becomes a complex,
grounded on the individual as a conglomerate, depriving him from
his constitutive essence, human. In individual terms, the myth
is the image, what we do of ourselves, independently of the relations
which configure ourselves; as such, static, absolut, aprioristic.
For exemple:
a) the search of adaptation, without know to what one is adapting,
without questioning the capability of the support of the predeterminate
structures for that goal;
b) the necessity of comunication and relationship, without think
of the levels in which this may occurs, if relational or positional,
superfitial or nucleate, meeting point or vanishing line;
c) the desire to take responsability through the divers forms
of commitment, "objectification" which in essence antagonizes
with responsability, of which the essential dynamic constitution
is lucidity, authenticity, therefore freedom;
d) the satisfaction, or personal realization, or happiness are
myths as well, since they are sought after as solution, that
means, in terms of future and not as configurations to be extracted
from the present problems.
Finally, the myth can be equated as an image, the role we attempt
to represent before us, the other and the world; any image, being
representation of the thing, is by definition adherent and responsible
for the break of the relation being-world, it is disharmony,
what means to say that all break of structure, of essencies,
of configurative plans, leads to distortion, to myths, which
can only be understood from the decodification, and here we enter
into the biggest myth of the actuality - in the sphere of psychology
- the complexity of the human, and then... "as a myth can
only be resolved by a myth and half"... arises the psychoanalysis
with its concepts of archetypes, instincts, human nature - all
of them static and, as irremovable, there exists the thinking
that they can be understood, or yet, in other levels, pointing
to the same point: the man, the religions, God, etc.
Of what was exposed, we conclude that the myth is static, therefore
magical, in an universe which possess as absolute just the relative.
In the movement, the myth wears down, and this fact, the history
of the anthropological, social, scientific and psychological
processes has already revealed to ourselves, what means: the
myth itself can only be visualized through the non-myth, that
is, the myth as itself is not a myth. Finally, we answer why
Freud has elaborated this myth - the unconscious - as well as
the cause of its maintenance. The perceptive distortion, resultant
of the perception of the whole, the man, as sum of the parts
(instincts, unconscious, Id, Ego, Super-Ego), gave origin to
a magical view [58]
of the human process, and just here, in this elementaristic
and mechanistic position, lays the psychoanalytic impossibility
to embrace the human dynamic as being-in-the-world, and the error
is not just of psychoanalysis, but of all subjectivistic metaphysics,
as distorting the relation of figure-ground, resulting from the
break of the Gestalt, break of the unitarian relation. This division
of the unity, due to non apprehension of the bipolarity of the
relational unity, generated the dualistic view and from it comes
the idealistic and metaphysical hyerachization that the idea
is primary and creates the matter [59]. [pgs.71 to 78]
FOOTNOTES:
58) Two basic attitudes characterize the scientific-methodological
cognitive explanation, as well as the perceptive apprehension
of any reality. We name this attitude as magical and objective,
distorted or not. The magical attitude would be resultant of
the unilateral experience of the configurative situation, as
it comes through auto-referential, or superposition of the focalized
situation through its plural dimension spatially or temporally.
The auto-referential is the decodification of the reality in
terms of knowledge already existents; whenever this happens,
there are in the cognitive relation constitutive pre-existencies,
that is why the real data (reality and derivatives, are employed
in the sense of contextual description, as geographical environment;
see Koffka, op.cit) is substituted by a significance which is
extrinsic to its significant structure. The farness results of
the non pregnance of the configuration of the reality, which
is derivation of auto-referential ground in homogenization. Through
the various pre-existents knowledges, one stratifys schemes from
where the known realities are removed to generic postulations.
Having cognitive pre-existence (the auto-referential), responsible
for the distance from the phenomenon which comes to be known
or which is being known, the temporal experience starts to be
apofanic (employed in the sense of derreistic experience; K.Conrad
- La Esquizofrenia Incipiente. Intento de un analisis de la Forma
del Delirio - Madrid - Alhambra - 1963); arising from this an
spatialized temporality, structuring therefore, as a point from
where delineates the configurative lines of what is there as
object of knowledge. Well, if determinate situation existent
now begins to be perceived in confront, comparision or through
the past, it means that it is perceived through the other, a
similar, but still other. What happens than is the analogic and
deductive knowledge, cartesian as such. The same situation of
now can be perceived through the temporal structure of the future,
what already has the implication of visualized goals and justificatives
which would explain what I know now; nevertheless, this is different
of memory and imagination (antecipation where the thinking is
the mediator). These temporal dislocations act as if the phenomenon
which has been known, perceptively apprehended or categorized,
transforms itself into a space, intersection point of time, that
as such already becomes a positional variant, therefore, space.
These explanations about magical attitudes are enfatic demonstrated
as concrete foundations for knowledge in any metaphysical position.
That is the case with Kant, for exemple, in his concept of logical
categories, the a priori, namely, the possibility of knowledge
lays after or before what is given to know. The man was, for
a long time, known and explained magically. The animism, spiritualism
and idealism are systematic stages of this position. The so called
"to know ones' ownself" is a typical representative
of these approach: "Oh man, know yourself in what you are
not, to be than, a man!". This vocative appeal shows very
well the basic attitude of magical preocupation with the know
ones' ownself. This attitude to search what was not known of
man in the man, was a result of the a priori that man was fruit
of the divine creation; to know the creature had the implication
of knowing the Creator, therefore, a dislocation; the distance
was stablished and the man begins to be known through generic
truths from moira, maktub, to God, S.S., etc. It comes indifferentiation
between what is created and what creates, the prove of the Creator
becomes the creature and vice-versa, there exists superposition.
Only through the transcendence that structure dogmas the man
can be known. The Socrate's "know your ownself", now
in the Theologic Summa of St. Tomas de Aquino, is to love, and
to love means to have faith, the knowledge is the transcendence,
thesis developed by Kant and foundation of the unconscious to
Freud. Finally, we verify that in spite of all elaborations which
come from auto-referential, distance and contextual superimpositions,
man does not know himself as a man, since he never looked himself
but through absoluts, being not possible for him to apprehend
his relational essence, since he tried to know himself negating
himself as object of knowledge, that is, always putting himself
as a point without a plan inasmuch as taking himself as the central
point of the knowledge of himself by himself. Speaking phenomenologically
and objectivelly, the knowledge of man, of the world and of the
phenomenon, exists by the apprehension of the relations which
constitute them and are by them constituted.
59. This distortion happened to the materialists as well, they
just changed the hyerarchical order: matter precedes the idea.
The phenomenology gave the solution of the problem through the
apprehension of totality, Gestalt, being-in-the-world, through
the concept of consciousnees as intencionality (Husserl).
[Extracted from the book
"Psicoterapia Gestaltista - conceituações", Fourth Chapter]
|