Posted by: Sk | February 12, 2009

2 The inconsistency of the unconscious as concept

I don’t know what we were talking about, again. It was in one of those obscure beer smelling cafés in the whereabouts of Clignancourt whose coffee, as usual, was of such bad quality that you did always have the feeling you were making some charity work while ordering one, that we met between hours with some university mates, among which, Thomas Lunz. Thomas Lunz was the intellectual out speaker of the growing idea ‘only men think’ and whenever all the others were lacking of arguments, which was often the case, he was brought for help in order to smash some definite argument that would restore balances to their advantage.

Thomas Lunz maintained that even if he was not a Jew through Jewish laws, he would have been killed during the second world war because his father was, and in any case he maintained Spinoza was the only appropriate philosophical ideology that may be defendable in our times. I have never understood arguments in ‘if’ and even less could grasp their finality. ‘If Hitler had murdered all women, I may have been among them.’ So what. There are so many possible ifs that you can’t spend your life evaluating what may possible have happened under all of them.

But he had something in common with myself that was that even without ‘if’ I was subjected to the same kind of dilemma, as my mother Spanish and my father German, and through German tradition, the mother determining, and through Spanish, the father, so that I often had the feeling I was a little tennis ball thrown from one side to the other of national responsibilities. ‘That’s why I went to France,’ I said to Dimitra one day in Nigrita, ‘better to stay somewhere in the middle, in the whereabouts of the net.’

That day, apparently another university mate, David Prudhomme, was in need of some definite help concerning a question I had as usual solved in, to them, radical and harsh terms, and had arrived with Thomas Lunz, I hardly knew, in order to prove of whatever the contrary. I don’t remember what it was about but Thomas Lunz thought it appropriate at that moment to make Freud intervene in the conversation, and as I really don’t like those kinds of group and flock behaviors and ‘he for all of us’ and the kind, I became quite aggressive in some horribly ironic way and without thinking about it twice said ‘in any case, I don’t think it is possible to talk about a philosophically justifiable concept of the unconscious’.

Which shocked the surrounding.

It was my way to escape to pressures. Not that I maintained such thesis, a priori, as I didn’t know the subject very well, to be honest. But, prove the contrary. And if you do, and if you can, will it still be the acquisition of a whole flock of empty minds, or your own personal effort reflecting some result which, to be honest, and propping out of mind and understanding, having little to do with sexual determinations? – He never went as far as to understand the quiz behind my affirmations, because, it is true, to play the role of a little star among brains full of dust, as Tula would have put it, was comforting enough so as not to push provocations further.

Myself though, in some submission to bad consciousness or professional ethics concerning my quite affective reaction, went immediately to lend some book of Freud on the unconscious – I wouldn’t have gone so far so as to buy one – and read the whole demonstration on the justification of the concept of the unconscious with greatest care.

Unluckily, it looked quite sound. ‘It is possible to derive the necessity of admission of the concept of the unconscious through the very fact that a whole lot of doings and sayings that are not consciously determined do still have some kind of intelligible meaning, which implies that some entity is determining, which as not being conscious, can as well be said ‘unconscious” Was more or less the argumentation, which, as coming from a psychologist, may even have impressed a philosopher, as ‘indirect induction in a deductive frame’. Something like a somewhat bizarre ‘tiers exclu’ of not formalized nature.

Hmm, yes. I went back in my blunt affirmations, which is always a strategy, as if it were true, the formal frame was lacking, and if false, it looked convincing enough so as to seduce whole tons of people, which made necessarily an enormous opposition and consequently, it was better to play the enemy’s game until the question solved in a more appropriate way. Of course I did never say that the argument was wicked enough so as to oblige me to consider it as from the perspective of a personal belief, (the only way to evaluate consequences in practice and thus to have empirical evidence to back a counter argument), because it would have meant some weakness in my positions, which in any case, was not good to be shown. I still maintained there was unconscious none four years later.

My justification, which was not rational or logical nor hold in structures of definition or understanding, was simply moral. The maintaining of some unconscious roaming somewhere behind our neck, does make of the human an irresponsible entity as not able to deal with impulses arising from the depth of such Loch Ness, and this made of him a slave without ‘person’ (ability of responding by himself.) Prevails, I maintained against all evidence towards Thomas Lunz, because the concept of person is first.

The problem about theories of knowledge is that they’re so difficult to acquire that they are few and most of them almost ridiculous in a logical approach. To say that the way you make up a theory of knowledge is already depending on a theory of knowledge and this makes demonstrations very weak and mostly inconsistent (círculo vicioso, in Spanish: the fact of using as demonstrating tool the very demonstration). Even the most developed of them, which are quite old in time, as those of Plato and Aristotle show obvious lack in consistency. (Is understood under consistent: ’sound, not contradictory, clearly deriving as consequence from premises, definitions and logical frame’, and something has to be consistent in order to be hold for philosophically true, as it is otherwise nothing but a subjective belief without general validity.)

Conceive you’re dealing with 6 of them at the same time (take: Plato, Aristotle, Saint Augustine, Descartes, Kant and your own objections) – arguments become almost impossible. What may be in this frame is not in that, and what is in that, is not in this, and consequently, how do you find a general field of thought which may warrant at least the possibility of communication? And after, the possibility of determining which one is more appropriate and thus a backing for a new approach?

I quickly decided to invade the male camp ‘par excellence’ of logic and epistemology. Not that it was nice. A teacher did really lay down on a desk while trying to look like the actor of ‘The circle of lost poets’ (or something of the kind) and really but really said that ‘women don’t think’. You must be a woman then, I thought – and almost failed my examination in logics.

In fact, the problem of maintaining thesis is that you have to be somewhere in order to reasonably back them, and while you are nowhere you’re just putting some kind of subjective and very personal mark to your convictions you’re arguing around with while testing what looks more convincing, without it though implying it is necessarily sound.

After a while, my theory concerning the fact that the atom was not to be hold for referential in physics but movement as such almost threw the whole Physics department on my head and when, continuing on that path, I happily remarked that ‘there was no determining reason why it could not be possibly said someone may walk on waters’ I was immediately accused of religious fundamentalism and had the whole left wing, which was luckily quite reduced in the environments, running behind me with sharp knifes and most poisoned gossip.

I never went into such quarrels because I still maintained that, not having a proper theory of knowledge nor a bridging structure to other theories, I was just giving back some personal opinions based on intuition which, as not pretending to universal value, may not give any reason whatsoever to a confrontation. Just respect my personal opinion, I said, which is a constitutional right. They wouldn’t. Such a misbehavior, I thought, and left.

In 1992 I develop the theory saying that if it is possible to determine in identity a concept with its possible definition (a word without definition is a ‘notion’, a word with definition, determined in essence and accident is a ‘concept’), and nature not providing identity through senses (common thought in all philosophic currents were they idealistic or empirical – to say that there are sound a priori proofs on the subject that I don’t need to reproduce), then the principle through which identity is obtained ‘other’ and interacting with the empirical mass in a proper way. To say that the marks accompanying a determination in identity (universal, necessary, attached in essence and through accident) are not to be found in nature and thus do derive from the very principle, which as having marks that do not belong to nature, is to be hold from ’somewhere else’, without it being possible to know for the moment in which realms it stays. (The before mentioned is a a priori deduction – which is to say true in itself and not subjected to subjective belief.)

Things start to look better this way. Without imposing a God to anyone, the principle of identity becomes a bridging entity between believers and not believers, as ‘there is no intelligible word without identity’. That religion does develop the principle in most subjective ways, by attributing some identity in person to this principle, exercise which on the other hand had already been made by Plato, does not imply a tolerant believer may not be able to abstract from the person a formal principle that does rule on speech and understanding, thus allowing some kind of communication with the opposite side. How tolerant I’m, isn’t it, Thomas, the ‘radical fundamentalist’?

Of course it is not that difficult to understand why religion does go that far. I’m myself as ‘I’, which is mainly a notion and sometimes rarely a concept, subjected to the principle of identity in order to be able to seize were it a very to flesh and bones linked ‘I’. It’s of ‘nature’ (categories in derivation) that the ‘x’ allowing the possibility of ‘z’ be not inferior in essence to ‘z’, as it would not allow its seizing otherwise. To say: you see colors with eyes and light, but not with ears. Ears do not interact with light and do not perceive it. The ‘the’ through which you perceive has elements allowing the perception that are ‘in the same nature’ than the perceived. If the principle of identity does allow the seizing of a ‘free, with own will, self determining, autonomous, self reflecting, singular entity’, it means that it has inherent those qualities.

This is though not a ‘demonstration’ that may be imposed on human mind through essences and universal needs – it is the free submission to evidence that makes that the acceptance of an identity called God stays in the wanting of the subject, not as choice, but as deliberate recognition of evidence in its subjective realm. Religion strains the fact that God made the human ‘free’, as otherwise he would not be a same for the same. To say that the imposition were it through the necessity in concept or demonstration of a given identity, would have made of the human a slave and thus not a free identity as equal to the one who is at the origin of him: “He has wanted you a little less than Gods” (Psalms)

Follow extremely complicated demonstrations on logical validity, identification, rational parameters and many etc.

What is our interest, here, though? A consciousness is an awareness. This awareness concerns as much physical impressions as a whole lot depending on what is called faculties of representation: fantasy, dreams, imagination, illusion. And the awareness of something called ‘thought’, a series of words appearing to the same consciousness inside of which a peculiar ‘I’ is at the same time the thinking entity and the one who is aware of the thought, and attaches itself with greatest easiness all sorts of impressions arriving through senses, a whole and complete body and sometimes even many, many other things, as houses, cars and families in almost symbiotic fusions.

This ‘I’ may or not, attach to himself some ‘feelings’. It attributes some affective movements, identified and classified and specified to the ’self’. ‘I’m sad’, I’m very happy’, ‘I’m furious’. Where do the impressions come from that are to be used as foundation for the more or less appropriate identification of so called feelings? From brains? Neurons? Nerves?

In 1992 already, I make the difference between the subjective and objective apprehension of things and thus of the determination of concepts. ‘It’s hot’ and ‘There are 40°C” may be the same in a given situation and though not necessarily always. In point ‘a’ it referrers itself though to the same reality from a different point of view.

Without further analysis nor logical proof, I call the reality of the subjective apprehension ’soul’ and the one of the objective reality ‘body’, which are, at that moment, only justified as realms determining different vision angles on a same situation. To say, that soul, at that moment, has neither time nor space nor material reality, it is the realm in which the human is, from an intellectual point of view, when considering things from a certain perspective.

Inside of this frame appears the following appalling evidence: there is unconscious none. Why? It is true that we don’t spend our time giving thought or name to all perceptions. I’m not thinking constantly: this is brown and hard and in front of me and cold and thousands and thousands of necessary remarks I would have to do if I had to think everything arriving of senses, which does though not mean, that I’m not conscious of them. On the contrary, memory seems to order information in little boxes, where the arriving of senses has a special file, which I can open the very moment I want. “What color was that men’s hat?” “Hmm – search – brown.” I didn’t think it at that moment, but my conscious awareness has kept data for later.

And this is the case for all psychic movements and impulses and tendencies and desires and, and, and … which of course, are not thought of immediately, but we may think of them if ever of need whenever requested. (No, they’re in another file.)

What happens? It appears as if what is generally called ‘unconscious’ was nothing but what others call ‘bad consciousness’, but in an almost perverted way. What is bad consciousness? The human has the awareness of law, which does affect many fields of which one the intellectual. It is of law to name things by their names, and the tendency to substitute words by others in order to confuse the apprehension ‘forbidden’ (producing trouble in general balances). What happens if I infringe law, of whatever nature? I feel bad, and this even if it is only a partial regulation, concerning a family, for example. ‘Don’t eat fish with your fingers’, your mother said. Do it. Do you feel well? There are three ways of escaping to the consciousness of infraction: 1. a rational analysis of the need of such regulation – people around are doing like that, I can’t but do the same; regulation may apply only on determined fields; it’s of no essential need anymore, etc 2. a submission to regulation again in order to avoid feeling bad again 3. a rejection in affective terms accompanied by all sorts of expressions as ‘what do I care’, ‘I do what I want’, etc or its annihilation

How do you annihilate the consciousness of bad consciousness? Through given structures of understanding that do make it impossible to synthesize (seize) the feeling deriving of the infraction of law.

To say. The human does construct himself a house in word determining more or less what he wants to work out in thought. Taboo are those subjects which are not allowed to be thought of, usually because the human is aware of the fact that the formal structures do not allow the proper dealing with a certain number of subjects. This is a healthy structure of protection. What if I make use of it in order to murder the awareness of what is not of my liking? It is possible, as the fundamental structure existing. How do you put words together in a formal frame in order to annihilate the apprehension of bad consciousness?

This way: ‘indirect induction in a deductive frame’

What is an induction? It is a lot of little elements that have something in common so that it is possible to seize a principle in space (identity) or in time (consequence). ‘You have fever, you are red, you are tired’ – induction: you’re ill. (Here in the exercise of the faculty of judgment – particular case). What is a deduction: All leaves have chlorophyll and only. It has chlorophyll. Thus, it is a leave.

What Freud forgets is ‘and only’. There are things that are done that are not conscious – thus, there is an unconscious. Only? We don’t want to get aware of. We build structures in order not to allow them to be. Why necessarily justify essentially the need of the concept of the unconscious?

Logical frame of thought: ‘a’ f thus ‘b’ v = ‘c’ v

The inherent essential relationship from the cause to the consequence has been annihilated by the fact the cause may not necessarily determine the nature of the consequence, as if there is essential link between a and b, then ‘a’ can’t have an essentially determining character as ‘v’ being contrary to the one of ‘b’.

The moral perception has been destroyed in the possibility of linking essentially a fact ‘a’ (intention) to a fact ‘b’ (crime).

This, Hollywood, is a rape (imposition of evidence without rational frame) and a murder (annihilation of moral apprehension in formal structures, the very notion of person) – probably developed to escape the responsibility of both factual crimes of Sigmund Freud, as structures reveal.

Don’t say it’s not a nice … ideology.

And here we are, Thomas Lunz. The flocks and the general appropriation of something belonging to a singular through marks of gender, nation, etc. may be nothing but exactly the general behavior of the presumption of Freud’s truths.

Do you know what? Germany has put into its constitution that ‘the belonging of the particular is to be hold as richening the whole’. Are you German, or a Jew, Thomas?

It’s the same logical structure: the element of induction (particular) is to be hold as belonging to the whole (produce deductive evidence).

I’m not saying that you’re a rapist or a murder. Just you have to be careful with structures of understanding …


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: