Freud split the mind, or psyche, into 3 distinct parts. Yet, it seems there may in fact be only two parts, or frames of reference, to the mind. This is because there is no "mind" only experience and all experience is ego-framed as either separate or unified with many degrees and levels in between.
We are always somewhere in-between.
Due to the exclusive nature of separation, we fail to experience the inclusiveness of a unified perspective. However, both can be converged into a new and, as of yet, unknown experience, but first they must be equalized in value. The problem with all experience is wrapped up in 'value' and your experience will always signify what perspective is valued above another.
Therefore, the only rule of this game is that one frame of reference cannot be valued above the other. Assert one experience as "illusion," against another as "real," and you close yourself off from full experience. There is no such experience as "illusory" nor is there any such experience as "real" and splitting reality in this way is "delusional."
Freud split the psyche into ego, id and superego, in which ego was the mediating presence between the id, or primitive self, and the superego or social self (this is a very simplistic representation). It is the ego that adheres to Freud’s “reality principle” (which is delusional) and mediates between the id and superego to conform to this principle, as if there was such a 'true' experience as 'reality.' Over extension of primitive id and superego (social ‘self’) must punish through guilt. Too many moral imperatives and the id will punish through unmet needs. According to Freud, the ego tends to mediate both processes so that deep-seated needs are met while at the same time, social morality is adequately adhered to and civilization maintained.
Freud does not necessarily vilify either id or superego, only when the respective functions are imbalanced do we have dysfunctional thought and maladaptive behaviors. Otherwise, both are necessary to the healthy functioning of the ‘self.’ The healthy self is theorized by Freud as a well-balanced id and superego as mediated through a strong ego.
Freud’s theory is convoluted and reliant on various other principles resulting in numerous personality dysfunctions. The ego can never really attain perfect balance between the two opposing aspects, id and superego, and this is cause for consistent suffering.
The problem is that Freud fully believed in the existence of the ‘self’ and therefore, idolized the functions as necessary to healthy functioning of a ‘self’ or that package of beliefs that make up the ‘self.’ Freud preferred not going any deeper than empirical reality permitted (science) and this resulted in his negating of religion as well as his split with Jung.
Freud clearly believed the ‘mind’ conformed to reality as opposed to reality conforming to the mind. Freud could not conceptualize a union between 'world' and 'self' and this is why his theories are deeply in favor of the autonomous ‘self’ separate from the world. Yet, many eastern non-dualistic religions have put that theory in doubt and, instead, conceptualize and teach a unified self-world, but only in the absence or transcendence of the 'self.'
TWO EXPERIENCES
If we discard the concept of “mind” and replace with pure experience, the ego is composed of two distinct perspectives or frames of reference, unified and separate. It constructs experience of a 'world' from these two perspectives. There is NO 'world' only 'self' which constructs experiences supportive of itself.
The problem is that the ego-self is deeply invested in experience only from a separate frame of reference. This is because the ego-self has conceptualized (not experienced) any total unification experience as the death of itself. Therefore, the experience it constructs adheres to a separate self-construct out of fear.
Of course, this leads it to idealize and sacralize the opposite unified frame of referencing the world and so we have numerous esoteric religions and spiritual ideologies which play into that idealization of total unified oneness or non-dualism. The separate experience is minimized as “ordinary” while pursuit of a unified experience with ‘world’ is deeply desired and sought out.
Yet, why would the ego-self understand unity as death to itself, but still seek to worship unity and minimize as 'ordinary' the experiential frame of separation?
This is because, although it adheres to a separate frame of referencing the world, it also suffers through that frame of reference and therefore seeks to transcend that suffering. You're not really seeking to transcend the ego, but the suffering of a separate frame of reference. The ego-self does this by seeking what it believes is a more ‘real’ experience, thereby attempting to negate the dualistic for non-dualistic.
The ego-self has always looked to the dualistic world of a separate ego construct to save it, but eventually this is discarded for religion and the conceptual ideology of oneness or non-dual existence. Thus, we have the dualistic desire to remain separate and seek unity and, since seeking is not about actually having unity (since that would end a separate self seeking), the ego-self becomes comfortable in suffering through a lack of unity so that it can live out its existence seeking unity.
Therefore, we have the incredibly impossible task (or so the ego constructs it) of re-tooling the ego-self to realize the paradox that there is no either/or. Unity does not annihilate separation and separation does not sever unity.
But try telling that to your ego and it will resist because from an ego standpoint there is only one or the other.
TWO VOICES
The only way this can occur is if the ego-self begins to incorporate both frames and listen distinctly for 'two voices.' The first will always promote experience from a separate frame of reference, while the second will incorporate a unified frame of reference. Either way, both are egoic in nature and do not rely on divine mind, universal consciousness, oneness, god or any other conceptual platitude. They rely on YOU. However, you can certainly use these labels, but all the experiences you encounter, you will give to yourself.
Judeo-Christian traditions have a long history of referring to this unified frame, or 'second voice,' as the “Holy Spirit.” They report that you will always hear the ego first and the Holy Spirit second. Problem is that the investment is, in most cases, to the first voice and this separate frame of reference is what you have always based the conduct of your life. It seems that listening to the second voice, or experiencing through a unified frame takes a great deal of practice.
This appears to be the problem with non-dualistic religions in that the emphasis is completely on unification as first voice, thereby completely renouncing and transcending the separate frame of experience or the voice you have become accustomed to hearing. Unfortunately, to the ego, who is no fool, this smacks of hypocrisy, because they teach you to experience from unity, while you must continue to live from and participate in the 'world' through a separate frame of experience. Your experiences of a separate 'world' construct, continue to match your separate self, regardless of all your practices to arrange for the opposite experience.
There is nothing sacred about an ego-self experiencing from two distinct frames of reference. Neither is more advantageous than the other, except that the experience of separation is known and, therefore, some work is involved in equalizing the two frames of experience. Yet, there is no need to abnegate your ‘self’ for a unified frame of experiencing the world, since it will always be a self that unifies with the 'world.'
The paradox to grasp is unity in separation, separation in unity.
Swing fully to separate and you experience exactly what you now experience. Swing fully to unified and…well, you can’t because you would no longer be “you.” Most spiritual websites seem to either promote separate self-development or complete self-abnegation through unity.
Yet, only by adopting both equally, will your experiential construct of 'world' change in accordance to that paradoxical frame of reference. It is "surprising' to experience your world from two equally valued perspectives and the best way to conceptually describe it is as an always expanding awareness and there is no event or 'place' that it shows distinction or difference from another 'place'. From this experience one can engage in an 'infinite game' through the separate frame of reference with no attachment to outcome due to a unified frame. Detachment to outcomes is the liberation we seek, however, we do not desire the end of all play as a separate self.
From equalized perspectives one can become an infinite player without giving up the 'self' or negating oneness, since neither is valued more or less than the other. Life goes on with less suffering the more one plays games infinitely, rather than by seeking finite outcomes. When you are no longer attached to what 'happens,' even death takes on an infinite fascination that can be quite exhilarating.
0 comments:
Post a Comment