In reading Freud’s article on the unconscious, I was reminded of this diagram presented to me by a past teacher. Though I can’t recall the formal name of this diagram, it does help to map out traits of individuals as the individual perceives himself, as well, as how other people perceive the individual. This diagram also plainly indicates the field of the unconscious and demonstrates what it is in relation to self-perspective and the perspective of others. This diagram dissects the different perspectives as they view one individual and thus, allow us to comprehend in more depth and wholeness all the perspectives that make up what we call “an individual.” This individual is not whole by knowing only what he knows about himself, and the individual is not whole to others by what they know about him or her. There are things that are mysterious to the individual that may not be so to another person, while there are things that are mysterious to others that are not mysterious to the individual. The unconscious, however, is mysterious to both, which illustrate the plane of ourselves that will never be fully understood by anyone. This means that an individual can never be seen as a complete “whole.”
If we are speaking of an apocalypse as a big, life-changing event that changes how we view the world or alters how we live in the world, understanding ourselves through different perspectives can awaken us to a different, deeper reality. This reality broadens our view of ourselves and of others. This is a big change because we are then capable of seeing ourselves through another’s eyes and we are able to see ourselves in relation to what we will never understand. Also, by seeing ourselves through these point-of-views, we may see things about ourselves that we never saw before. Thus, by gaining a broader—though always incomplete— way of viewing others and ourselves, we become more conscious of who we are, why we are that way, and what we are capable of being.
You suggest that "understanding ourselves through different perspectives can awaken us to a different, deeper reality"—but can we ever get to that 'deepest' level, the bottom right-hand area of the diagram? Or does the unconscious always necessarily elude our (self-)knowledge? And if so, are there ways we can know enough about the other areas that such that we can live and cope with the unconscious? The unconscious is less about other points of view than it is about what *can't* be viewed—at least not ever directly. As you say, consciousness will be "always incomplete," and this can be a hard thing to accept.
ReplyDeleteThis post reminds me of Mark's post a few days before, and Schaberg's note that in order to think "critically-apocalyptically," we have to certainly weight in "social engagement," in the matter of theory. This diagram makes it clear that consciousness/unconsciousness is a group effort: "This individual is not whole by knowing only what he knows about himself, and the individual is not whole to others by what they know about him or her."
ReplyDeleteI've always loved the concept of the unconscious - especially the way it relates to the id/ego/superego. I think to be cognizant of the fact that we are not cognizant of everything going on in our own minds is great. I love that, according to Freud, we are in a constant unconscious battle with ourselves and society simultaneously. For instance, I know how to behave in a social situation, but there are things I would love to do that would be inappropriate. I would love to scream a profanity at the top of my lungs during a formal dinner in a packed restaurant, just to see how people would react, but I know that would be considered wrong. To relate this concept to apocalyptic rhetoric, this internal battle within our brains always results in one side (usually the superego) winning over the other. There is rarely a happy medium and one side always bites the dust.
ReplyDelete