A More Comprehensive View of the “Self”
From the Prospective of Wholistic Existential Psychology ( Response to John Smith’s Post of December 20th, 2020
In his latest post in our ongoing dialogue about “Will” (or “Willing”) as an aspect of Human Existence, John Smith offers more clarity to me about the proposition that he initially presented — namely, that “Free Will is an illusion”. My sense now is that Smith has rightly pointed out that my presentation of the theory of Wholistic Existential Anthropology (On the Nature of Reality: A Theory of Everything There is: Medium, June, 2019) has provided only a very minimal conceiving of Phenomenological World — which world is roughly equivalent to what is usually thought of as the realm of psychology. That minimal presentation includes only an indication that “Minding” is the basic constituent of Phenomenological World of reality and also suggests that Phenomenological World can also be thought of as the world of (individual) Human Experience. The Diagram in Essay One and the discussion following point to “Thinking”, “Feeling” and “Willing” as the basic elements of “Minding” and Experience. On the basis of those proposals, it makes sense to conclude that I am emphasizing an intimate connection between “Willing” and Consciousness and between “Willing” and Experience which also implies consciousness.
Smith’s latest post also suggests to me that he is pointing out, that I have presented no theory of the “Self”, and have not even used that term, although it seems central to any discussion of Human psychology, or even Human Existence.
Perhaps I have made it clear in previous posts that I have never used the term ”Free Will” in my theorizing. I have preferred to propose using gerunds in referring to psychological functions (“Feeling”, Thinking” and “Willing”) to make it clear that I do not use these terms to refer to “things” or objects that have “materiality”. This is in line with the general proposition that the term “reality” be considered as abstract, ideational, intellectual, and conceptual, rather than material (or “Physical” — in the way the term physical is usually used).
It is also true that my not using the term “Free Will” is largely related to issues that are raised by John Smith and which acknowledge the validity of many of his most central points. He is correct in intuitively or analytically concluding that the proposed psychological function, whether labeled “free Will” or “Willing”, implies some kind of “freedom”, or it has no meaning. I think that there is paradox involved in conceiving the relationship between freedom and constraint in relation to “Willing”. (I also believe that paradox is an inescapable characteristic of all discussions of “reality” and all that pertains to it. More about this later).
As John Smith points out, it is not viable to propose that what we mean by a “Human Being”, nor to define what it means to talk about a Human “self” as limited to Human Consciousness. Furthermore, as John Smith indicates, this same implausibility perhaps even more saliently arises in relation to proposing that the “self” is only what a Human Being is aware of (self-conscious of) as that person’s “self”.
In addition to calling myself (professionally) a Wholistic Existential Psychologist, I refer to myself as a depth psychologist. In one sense this is to identify my (professional) self as a part of the historical stream of psychologists who accept the basic premise of thinkers like Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung (and their followers). To whit, they believed and I believe that there are crucial aspects of every person (and that person’s “self”) which are out-of-awareness of that person. I accept the conception that there are aspects of every person which are unconscious or not-conscious. Thus it is conceived that there is a depth and (breadth) to the “self” that is not regularly or always experienced and which may be difficult (or even impossible) to bring into those conscious or self conscious aspects of the “self”.
I provide my all-too-frequent and necessary disclaimer — i.e., I am a very limited scholar — thereby acknowledging that many of my understandings are perhaps distorted or just plain wrong. It is my understanding that the Age of Reason refers to the coming into extancy of a view of the world in which Human Beings were seen to be “thinking”, rational creatures who were free to and did make choices on the basis of logical judgment. This was a great advancement in that it freed people from the belief that only scripture, often as defined by some religious institution could guide Human affairs. This enlightenment also implied that the reasoning “self” was conscious. This view also led to political notions about freedom and democracy (as well to the development of science as a method of exploring truth about the physical world).
The so called “Freudian Revolution” provided a counter balance to that view of Human Existence by suggesting that the Human self included powerful non-conscious, irrational, not-logical but comprehensible, factors which influence Human behavior and Human psychological functioning.
In the light of John Smith’s posts it is very clear to me that I have neglected to include in that first essay on Medium any indication of how Wholistic Existential Psychology (within Wholistic Existential Anthropology) might include and conceive of the unconscious, non-conscious, not self-conscious, aspects of the “self”. In this way, I have mislead John Smith into thinking that I might conceive of the self as limited to what is conscious or self-conscious and to be proposing that “willing” is “free”.
John Smith’s post has lent urgency to my formulating and publishing a more comprehensive view of the “self” and the relationship between consciousness, self consciousness, non-consciousness and unconsciousness and, more particularly, how these relate to “Willing”. I am not prepared to do present a more comprehensive conception of Phenomenological World or of the Human “self” in this posting. I hope to do so in the future. I have made public material which suggests a lot about what that more comprehensive conceiving might include. For writings that are related, go to my website (HarrisStern.com) to read material there, and also to gain access to relevant archived issues of my newsletters which were distributed on Constant Contact.
Here I can suggest that a more comprehensive formulation of Phenomenological World within Wholistic Existential Anthropology will include unconscious as well as conscious elements. See the diagram following this paragraph. Diagram One is labeled preliminary, because it is intended to point to distinctions important for conceiving a Wholistic Existential Psychology, but the full complexity of that task is certainly far from satisfactorily addressed.
Diagram One: The “Self” within Phenomenological World: A preliminary Representation
In the diagram the circle might be thought of as representing the “self”. The white area within the circle might be thought of as the aspect of the self where more conscious and self conscious functioning is conceived to be extant. The grey shaded triangle is intended to represent those elements within the self which can be thought of as often out of awareness with varying degrees of openness to coming into consciousness or self consciousness. In the diagram these elements are labeled “impulses”, “complexes” and “core beliefs”. I am not proposing that these three concepts are the only or best way of conceiving those elements of the “self” — they represent a preliminary effort to represent that which can be thought of as within the “self”. For example, the concept of introjects as proposed in Gestalt Therapy theory might usefully and plausibly included in conceiving the “self”. The black circle in the center of the diagram is intended to indicated those aspects of the self that are never or seldom within the “experienced” or conscious “self” — perhaps including such ideas as “archetypes” and “the collective unconscious” (of Jung).
My over all view of the nature of “reality” and the nature of Human Existence, mean that I will continue to propose that Human Beings do have the psychological function of “Willing”. In my view of what we mean by Human Existence (as opposed to, for example, animal life) and what we mean by civilization (ideals, laws) both provide support for conceiving that Human Beings can make choices and have responsibility for those choices. At the moment when we choose, we transcend the constraints on our choosing, and we experience the freedom to make a choice. This isn’t to say, that those unconscious or non-conscious aspects of who we are or who we conceive ourselves to be, have no influence. This is the paradox referred to above. We are both free and constrained at the same time.
Much of the work of what can be conceived as Human movement toward psychological development or movement towards socialization/civilization or our movement toward health involves working toward enlarging the range of what is included in our awareness and consciousness and our self consciousness. This movement then creates the possibility for integrating what has been unconscious into a balanced functioning whole (or self). This was central to the thinking and working of Freud and Jung. This process is always a work in progress — an ideal that can be pursued.
In his posting John Smith writes, ‘This phenomenon that we so glibly call “consciousness” no more wills and chooses, I suggest than the sound of a steam locomotive drives the engine forward’. Perhaps it is now clear that I am in agreement that it is not “consciousness” which wills and chooses. I rather propose that I, Harris Stern, (a conceived but not only conscious “self”) have the power to choose and move myself through “Willing”.
I also believe that there are aspects of myself which may be out of awareness at the moment of choice or which may never have been or never will be in my consciousness even though they are a part of myself who is choosing. I cannot be free to be not-myself. I cannot be free to be not the totality of who I am (which is what I mean by my “self”). My consciousness of my choosing and my willing is “real” and the power of my choosing and willing is “real”. I am free to choose, even if my choosing is influenced by all that I am — consciously and unconsciously — (and even, from the prospective of Wholistic Existential Anthropology, co-created and, therefore, influenced by all of “reality”). In this sense I am free and constrained.
I look forward to responses from John Smith, or anyone else who chooses (relatively freely) to enter into the discussion.
