XPost: alt.philosophy.debate, talk.philosophy.misc   
   From: mlwi@swipnet.se   
      
   The notion of the *unconscious* is necessary to understand the human   
   condition, in all aspects of life. The first to coin this term was   
   German philosopher Eduard Von Hartmann (1842-1906) in his Philosophy   
   of the Unconscious. But it was foremostly Sigmund Freud and   
   Carl Jung who gave the notion a significance beyond philosophy.   
      
   Many intellectuals think that the more rationality is present in a   
   living being, the less significant sentiment becomes. But this is   
   exactly the mistake that modern ideologies have committed, again and   
   again. They think that they can disregard our unconscious side, our   
   inherited nature, and build a rational and wholly ideologically   
   defined reality. But such an ideological construct is merely a house   
   of cards that will soon collapse. When our conscious side is become   
   imbued with rationality, this doesn't mean that our feeling and   
   instinct have disappeared.  This side of ourselves, poetically called   
   "our heart", merely takes up its abode in the unconscious, as it is   
   driven away from consciousness.   
      
   We shall not attempt to circumvent the unconscious by recourse to any   
   form of conscious ideology or philosophy. It doesn't help, because the   
   unconscious always strikes back with a vengeance. This has happened so   
   many times before, when civilization has collapsed in collective   
   madness. The Third Reich is an example of the collective possessive   
   quality of the unconscious. China under Mao is another example. The   
   communist ideology/philosophy would not allow room for the growth of   
   the individual, and the conscious ideas were so warped that people   
   were overcome by collective insanity. During The Cultural Revolution,   
   and The Great Leap, people became possessed, and they even resorted to   
   cannibalism. In Africa today, albino kids are murdered. Their limbs   
   are chopped off to be used as talismans. They go on murder- and rape   
   sprees when people's limbs are chopped off, beginning from the feet,   
   to create as much agony as possible. It is hard to make such facts   
   rhyme with all the airy-fairy philosophical views of mankind,   
   describing humanity as a rational and morally good species.   
      
   If we continue to repress the unconscious aspect of our nature, if we   
   refuse to listen to our heart, it will strike back with a vengeance.   
   On the personal level it could be neurosis or psychosomatic illness.   
   The split between instinct and politically correct mores, can have   
   neurotic consequences. On the collective side there could be   
   upheavals, or any of the diverse forms of perverted madness that never   
   cease to take possession of the human soul, fanatism, war-mongering,   
   terrorism, pogromes, etc.   
      
   On the other hand, when our emotional side is healthy and alive, it   
   aids our rational side. Feeling, for instance, can decide what is   
   valuable and what is inferior. Purely intellectual people, who lack   
   feeling, often go astray as they lack value judgement. So the   
   intellect wastes its time on things that are lacking in value and true   
   significance. Their intellect cannot pick out what's good. This is a   
   big handicap. Often they become depressive and neurotic, which, of   
   course, is damaging to progress.   
      
   Harmonious people (and animals) won't explode in aggressive displays.   
   To listen to our instinct and feeling does not cause us to behave more   
   like animals. Instead, we will become more like humans. This is the   
   first lesson of psychoanalysis. In the Victorian era, the hysterics   
   repressed their sexual nature. They didn't even allow themselves to   
   think about sex, because it was immoral and dirty. This gave rise to   
   horrible and debilitating symptoms. When, in therapy, they came to   
   accept their sexual nature, they soon became harmonious and upstanding   
   citizens. So they did not regress to immoral sexual behaviour.   
      
   People are very fond of intellectual philosophies, like   
   existentialism, marxism, phenomenology, and neohumanism. But these   
   theories do not heed our unconscious side and therefore are inept.   
   Human beings are not like  computers that can be programmed with the   
   latest pie-in-the-sky philosophy. We are a design of nature  that must   
   be viewed as an empirical phenomenon in itself. When we construct our   
   societies we must pay heed to this empirical reality.   
      
   I call these theoretical philosophies "cocoon-theories", as they spin   
   the subject into a theoretical cocoon where he/she is sheltered from   
   conscious realizations. Theory is actually used as protection against   
   an individual understanding; it's a sort of armour. Theory can thus be   
   used as an automatic rejection mechanism, whereby the truth is   
   rebuffed. In this way the subject is relieved of the painful process   
   of becoming a true individual, something which would move him/her out   
   of comfortable identification with the group. This is experienced as   
   so frightful that people resort to cocoon-theories just to avoid   
   becoming conscious.  In this form, theory serves as a protecting   
   mother's womb, a bulwark  against the real world and the realization   
   of  true human nature.   
      
   Such theories and belief systems provide all answers. It can be   
   marxism, anarchism, feminism, islamism, kantianism, existentialism,   
   libertarianism, idealism, progressivism, utilitarianism, etc., etc.,   
   etc. But they do not take the *unconscious* into account, because   
   these systems are mere rational constructs. So they are warped   
   constructs that are bound to be washed away like sand castles.   
   However, these theories provide people with ready-made answers with   
   which they can rebuff more sophisticated and demanding ways of   
   relating to life.   
      
   If you argue with such people you realize that they have made   
   themselves immune to argument. They have created a safe cocoon. The   
   silver threads of thought have created a new mother's womb inside   
   which they abide. So it is the expression of a mother's complex. They   
   feel safe and reassured inside this womb of theory. Everything is in   
   place in their theoretical little universe. But it's an illusion, of   
   course.   
      
   Please read my article "Symbolic Poverty". It delineates my   
   standpoint, which contrast sharply with the rationalistic stance:   
   http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/symbolic1.htm   
      
   I recommend authors like M-L von Franz and C.G. Jung. The following   
   text is from the Jung Lexicon by D. Sharp   
   (http://www.psychceu.com/Jung/sharplexicon.html)   
      
   --------------------   
   *UNCONSCIOUS* The totality of all psychic phenomena that lack the   
   quality of consciousness. (See also collective unconscious and   
   personal unconscious.)   
      
   The unconscious . . . is the source of the instinctual forces of the   
   psyche and of the forms or categories that regulate them, namely the   
   archetypes.[The Structure of the Psyche," CW 8, par. 342.]   
   The concept of the unconscious is for me an exclusively psychological   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)