Phenomenology
and Unconsciousness
1.
What is unconsciousness
In the
philosophical interpretation of Freud's teaching there is an opinion regarding
analogy between Freud and Kant [2, pp.358-368]. The analogy implies that, on the
one hand, according to Kant, the world, existing independently of consciousness
is "an object-in-itself" which cannot be identified with the reality
given to consciousness, on the other hand, according to Freud, the unconscious
sphere is also an independent world unconnected with the internal reality of
consciousness. Unconsciousness is not something that was or might become
conscious. The essential difference between consciousness and unconsciousness,
as well as between Kant's object-in-itself and the reality given to a human
being, is insuperable. Unconsciousness, as the "object-in-itself", is
principally unknowable. Within the frame of this analogy to Kant, we cannot
suggest what unconsciousness is. The only thing we can say is, that Freud, as
well as Kant, assumed the existence of unconsciousness, as far as discovering
the traces of its influence in the world of consciousness.
Existentialistic phenomenology has tried to overcome the
agnosticism of Kant, by synthesizing the object-in-itself and the reality given
to consciousness. Such a synthesis resulted in reality, as a phenomenon, where
main feature is the ability to be given to consciousness, its
"openness" toward perception and cognition. In this world, as
phenomenon and open toward consciousness, nothing is covered that cannot be
revealed and attained by the senses and reason, but the "openness"
itself, the ability to be given for perception, is the self-existing feature,
that is unavailable to cognition. The phenomenon can be known and conceived from
any point of view, but the existential root of its ability to be known is not
knowable. The reason why it becomes attainable and visible, how its
self-existence is established in its "openness", why it is independent
from the consciousness toward which it is open, is hidden under a veil of
secrecy.
Thus
on the one hand, the phenomenon is entirely open for consciousness and can be
drawn into the sphere of perception and comprehension. But, on the other hand,
as the object-in-itself, as the existence within the "absolute
openness", it remains permanently beyond consciousness and is conceptually
unattainable.
Let
me emphasize, that, according to Kant, judgment about the self-existing,
unknowable object is always antinomous. We can bring arguments pro and con -
This is true as well regarding our case, in so far as the interpretation of the
phenomenon is contradictory. On the one hand, the phenomenon is entirely
comprehensible, but on the other hand it is absolutely unknowable. This ability
to be knowable and unknowable does not reflect two opposite sides of the
phenomenon, but constitutes its unity; The more the phenomenon becomes
conscious, the more it slides away from consciousness; the more it enters the
frames of perception, the more sensibly it emerges, beyond which it is encircled
with eternal darkness. The very reason of its elusiveness is its openness, its
ability to be known.
As
above the phenomenon, as an object-in-itself, is free from any kind of
determination. But in so far as it has a conscious essence, which at the same
time implies full determination by cause or motivation, we can assume that
freedom and necessity exist mutually within a single entire phenomenon.
It
would take us too far to discuss these antinomous descriptions of the
phenomenon, so let us return to our analogy.
Suppose, that unconsciousness - something that lies beyond
consciousness - is an independent and self-existing essence. If we consider it
as a phenomenon, we must conclude, that the self-existence of unconsciousness
implies its "openness" toward consciousness. Unconsciousness cannot
exist independently without consciousness, unless it realizes its openness
toward its existential feature - cognition. In this process of self-realization
it is revealed as an object of perception and of entire comprehension; but as so
far as by this self-exploration it actually hides itself and establishes its
incognizable essence the entire process remains imperceptible as well. The
unconscious part retains independence and self-existence through losing
self-existence and independence from consciousness. That is why the process of
passing to consciousness is potentially endless for this process does not
annihilate unconsciousness, but rather establishes it more strongly.
Thus,
if we assume that being the phenomenon open to consciousness is an independent
self-existing process creating an endless stream of recovering the covered and
passing it to perception-thinking, we can consider unconsciousness to be a
horizon toward which the stream of consciousness is eternally striving.
It
should be noted that although this merging is inaccessible, nevertheless it
belongs to consciousness, because the existence of this phenomenon-in-frames is
possible only through the endless process of its perception and interpretation.
We mean, that consciousness contains unconsciousness as the inexhaustible source
of its conscious movement. It is constituted of wholeness, openness, uniqueness
and freedom. What might be such a self-existing phenomenon, which establishes
its originality and independence from consciousness by entering into the latter?
This is consciousness itself taken into its phenomenal integrity as a totally
free and unique essence. In the process of the self-cognition of any spiritual
event consciousness comes into collision with its own self - its unity freedom
and unique "me"; This free uniqueness is unconsciousness, which always
exists through its realization in consciousness and thanks to this eternal life,
remains in the main independent from consciousness.
Now we can
answer the question: "What is unconsciousness?" Unconsciousness is the
same as consciousness, but taken into its existential unity as a free and unique
phenomenon, an endless source for the processes, taking place in consciousness.
II.
The Oedipus Complex
Does
such a definition correspond with Freud’s notion that the Oedipus complex is
an expression of unconsciousness? It does, but only in case if we consider the
problem from the phenomenological point of view.
According
to the phenomenological method we must consider the Oedipus complex not as
existing in reality, but as isolated, within its ideal essence. Then to
"exclude" the complex from the determination of real existence helps
to interpret the meaning of the true essence of this complex. Such a surpassed
and indifferent position toward reality means, that the Oedipus complex is not
considered in its causative origin; it means as well, that it is not evaluated
from moralistic point of view because both of these moments - physical-effective
and ethical - are external factors of the given complex, they cannot be derived
internally from its essence, but determine it externally.
Thus,
phenomenology requires consideration of the Oedipus complex in its pure essence,
as existing within itself, without ethical evaluation or perception of its
psychophysical origin. But what else should we consider? If we do not observe it
as a real event, which can be explained through causal relations or judged
morally, than the Oedipus complex is an idealistic phenomenon, which includes
the basis and the idea of its own existence. Consequently, on the level of idea,
the complex must be considered as a sign system, a reflection of an inner
meaning, which gives existence to the complex itself.
Sexual
aspirations toward one’s mother may suggest a self-essence of being - in other
words, a human being striving to become a source of his own self.
This
aspiration comes into collision with conflict with father, who, actually, is his
real source.
But
the human being, as an ideal creature, or spiritual phenomenon, strives to avoid
his causative determinants and thus to achieve existence not externally, but
internally, on the basis of his own self.
In
this light the Oedipus complex is nothing but a conditional-symbolic
personification of phenomenological judgment, in which the real event is
"excluded" from the necessary relations of reality and is changed into
an ideal phenomenon, carrying in itself its own source.
But
the problem is, that the Oedipus complex does exist in reality. It is not only a
physical striving or fatal conflict, but also ideal content, which obviously
cannot be limited by the frames of the real event. So, the question emerges -
can any event, existing in reality, exceed this reality by obtaining a
conditional-symbolic layer, thus becoming an hieroglyph, which, due to its
symbolic nature, goes beyond the real existence? The Oedipus complex is the very
real-unreal phenomenon. We cannot perceive or evaluate it directly, but only
indirectly. Two mutually exclusive layers coexist within its frames; one is the
layer of reality, when the Oedipus striving in becoming one’s fate is opposed
to the norms of life and bound with an objective determination. The other is the
conditional-symbolic layer - with the complex being the sign of the unreal
aspiration of the human being. This gets free from determination by the external
world and becomes source of its own self. Thus, the real complex is
phenomenologically reduced and changed into a pure phenomenon within itself.
The
above supports Freud’s assumption, that the Oedipus complex is the symbol of
the unconsciousness. We define unconsciousness as binatural, antinomous entity -
something independent from consciousness and, at the same time, open toward it.
It
is the "openness" which brings this double nature into the frame of a
single essence; the openness itself is the absolute, unattainable essence, which
simultaneously, is perceptible and cognizable. The Oedipus complex meets these
requirements. The orientation toward mother, means indirectly an unreal
aspiration to envelope or be its own source, or, in the other words, an ideal
existence in itself. But as far as this striving is real, we can conclude, that
the potential for self-existence is simultaneously open for knowing reality;
because by entering reality and becoming determined, it establishes itself as an
unreal, undetermined phenomenon.
The
Oedipus complex is "attached" to the reality of a human being as a
totally different essence, just in the same way as unconsciousness enters
consciousness, while remaining a different, independent nature. Due to such
dualism, the Oedipus complex as the symbol of unconsciousness conquers those
spheres of reality where the neglecting of determination, is seen as a
"sign of freedom". One of such spheres is dream - where reality is
distorted, functioning and meaning giving as free associations.
A
similar situation occurs during "bracketing”, when consciousness banishes
the determinants of a physical event from to the unconsciousness, so, the
Oedipus complex lies at the bottom of such spontaneous physical events.
Thus,
the Oedipus complex is the symbol of unconsciousness, as far as one internally
includes and expresses the antinomity and entity attached to the other. There is
difference and similarity at the same time, between the existence of
unconsciousness and its symbol. The difference occurs, because an unattainable
essence of unconsciousness is played up through the complex, thus becoming only
its conditional sign. The similarity occurs insofar as the unconsciousness, as a
phenomenon, does not exist without such a conditional transformation in
consciousness. The very act of transformation and symbolization implies its
phenomenal existence. The conclusion than is that the Oedipus complex differs
from unconsciousness and due to this difference becomes a phenomenon similar to
it.
Both,
difference and similarity, between unconsciousness and its complex, mean that
the Oedipus complex is not the only symbol of unconsciousness; there might exist
other symbols of unconsciousness, or other complexes as well. They supplement
the Oedipus complex, which at some degree implies them in its unconsciousness as
their pure opportunity. But these very complicated (even paradoxial) relations
can be admitted only if we consider each complex (including the Oedipus complex)
as a pure phenomenon, in other words, as being "excluded" from reality
and free from external determinants.
Through
such a phenomenological approach we are able to free the complex from all that
determines it from the side of reality.
Thus,
the Oedipus complex is unconsciousness in its pure symbolic being without the
sexual motive, which otherwise narrows, externally determines and even destroys
it.
The
next step in the phenomenological discussion is to opening the horizon of
possibilities.
As
we have seen, the Oedipus complex as symbol of unconsciousness is related to
other conditional complex. That is why, through its phenomenological analysis,
we can discover other opportunities of the hieroglyph of unconsciousness.
The
Oedipus complex includes some internal opposition - the eminent aspiration of a
human being to embrace his own source and become like God - is, in real life
transformed into a sexual strive that belittles him. Why does the movement
toward perfection become distorted in the context of the Oedipus complex? There
is only one reason - to show how incompatible are the real and unreal worlds, to
expose the vanity of the mundane world in contrast to the kingdom of Heaven. The
fate of Oedipus implies conflict between soul and body and which is why the
eminence of the soul toward the absolute source may turn into carnal passion and
aggression, belittling the human being. So, the way to perfection begins with a
feeling of imperfection and is revealed during the endless fight with this
feeling. The heaviest sense of sin troubles Oedipus and makes him wonder from
town to town. This sense cannot be framed to the horizon of one country, it is
directed rather toward everybody and everything, toward the ideal world.
The
experience of the Fall as stimulus of perfection is a new variation, implied in
the Oedipus complex as one of the opportunities. If the major motive of Oedipus
is the fate, which, according to Freud’s interpretation, is simultaneously the
cause and the result of unconsciousness, the motive of the Fall is freedom, and
the New Testament discovers how to defeat fate. This new horizon of opportunity
can be discovered through the experience of regret. Regret is stretched
endlessly backward to the past as regret about lost perfection. It joins the
present as recognition and experience of the Fall It is directed toward the
future as belief and hope of the God's support on the way of perfection.
Let
us discuss these three forms of separately.
1.Regret. Regret, being stretched backward in the immemorial past morns
the lost paradise. But this nostalgia is not directly enforced - it is
transformed into another feeling. If regret were directly connected with its
roots, there would exist some fatal necessity incorporated in the infinity of
the past. Regret thus would not be result of a creative afford of the soul; but
confession is a free action during all three phases. That is why the aim of the
metamorphoses of confession is to free regret from the fatal determinism of the
Fall and change it into other relations. Thus, the experience of the Fall, is
transformed and attached to the real life of the human being, but it begins to
idealize its object because it cannot be framed by reality.
This is the way to idealize the past; the nostalgias of Marcel Proust
toward his past is boundless, although it is impossible to reconstruct it in the
memories of his childhood in such a subtle, detailed way. As the Georgian
philosopher, Merab Mamardashvili notes, the writer does not memorize his
childhood, but rather creates a new reality, equivalent to the past [1]. No
doubt, each memory, as an artistic phenomenon, is the work of creation; it does
not reflect the past, but, as a self-existing phenomenon, conditionally comes as
a consequence to it. But Marcel Proust destroys even this connection between his
memories and the past. So, the relation exists and at the same time does not
exist. It exists according to the narration, but if we talk about the style of
the narration - particularly the endless, detailed description and infinite
reflection of the relations - we might suspect the existence of some other
spiritual phenomenon. Does our mind constructs an event that has never taken
place? We give particular meaning and attraction to the past only from the
viewpoint of the present, through the process of searching back, and if this
search is endless, the world of the past also can be endlessly broadened.
This is the process that takes place in Marcel Proust's works [3]. The
writer considers the process of searching the past to be endless when the merge
between memory and creation disappears. The search is endless because the past
is like a river, which passes only once. It is impossible to reproduce it in
words, but the writer strives toward it, in order to change the memories into
fantasy during the search of past times and transform the memory determined by
the past into the free creative process of a new past.
This is the same process of the transformation of the soul, as it takes
place during the confession when the regret resulted from the Fall, is freed
from determination and is carried to another particular experience. The past
having been excluded from the time-stream, is freed from its own reality and is
revealed as a sign, an idea about some other past.
But what is this other past? This is the paradise lost as a result of the
Fall. The unconscious memory about of it constituting the feeling of regret for
the immemorial perfection and happiness.
The incarnation of Christ destroyed the need for regret to be determined
by the fact of the Fall. The idea of the regret remains, but the feeling has
changed into an undetermined, self-existing phenomenon. This freedom required
its transformation or symbolization into some other experience.
2.Confession. The same kind of transformation takes place on the second
stage of confession. The lost paradise is conditionally transformed into an
idealization of a particular past. The same is true regarding the experience of
the first fall, which is the subject of symbolization through the admission of
the particular sins of a human being. This ritual of symbolization destroys any
kind of determination.
In the process of confession the human being does not try to justify
himself; he does not consider himself to be a victim of circumstances - as if
fate has thrown him into sin. On the contrary, the person in confession becomes
privately responsible for everything that burdens his soul and takes place
because of his fate. Only the person, who is free from fate can become subject
to the supreme divine court to receive amnesty of his sins and enter the third,
the most important phase of confession - the freedom of belief.
3. Belief. The phenomenon of belief, as the original, superconscious part
of the soul, exists in total freedom. It can be determined neither by external
force, nor by internal necessity. Belief differs from the other unconscious
phenomenon of the soul, when an anonymous determinant acts, although secretly.
Such determinant cannot be admitted regarding belief. Although in its pure
essence, it is the belief in an absolute substance; yet the freedom of the
relation between God and a human being does not allow us to suggest any
determined connection between belief and its object. I do not believe because I
am afraid of God, or I hope in a mystery, rather I have hope and fear because I
already believe in God. The people did not believe in Christ because of his
miracles. On the contrary, Christ did miracles because they believed. Although
the basis for the belief is the internal necessity of consciousness, its very
first seed, its energetic root, exists beyond any necessity, unconditionally and
is not subordinated to any kind of determinism.
As
we see, in all three phases of confession - regret, confession and belief - it
is essential to overcome determinism and establish freedom in order symbolically
to transform original sin and obtain belief in the absolute.
Thus,
two possible variations of unconsciousness - experience of the Fall and the
Oedipus complex - became manifest in the second stage of phenomenological
discussion.
Let
us pass over the third stage and identify what remains invariant in the two
different variations of the phenomenon.
What
might be an invariant in both the Oedipus complex and the experience of the
Fall? What common point units these two in one general essence?
The
phenomenological approach requires definition of this generality through the
difference between its elements; in the other words, perception of the idea of
unity through the special essence of each variation.
So,
what is the difference between the Oedipus complex and the experience of the
Fall? Both variations imply aspiration toward perfection and comprehension of
their own sources, but the ways to achieve this purpose are differencing
principle.
In
case of Oedipus this aspiration is transformed into a fatal, sexual-aggressive
striving, which shows that mundane reality does not correspond with the ideal
world.
On
the other hand, the experience of the Fall raises regret and a free striving
toward divine perfection. Confession and receiving communion with the perfect
substance constitute a free choice by a human being in his real life. Thus, the
act of confession implies an idea of the comparability of the real and unreal,
soul and body, an idea of freedom, which is no longer transformed into fate.
The
phenomenon of Christ unites these two opposites through maintaining the
mentioned differences. The Redeemer neither avoids nor obeys his fate; it is his
free choice, as correspondence of his life with the prophecies of the Old
Testament. The personal responsibility for fate means, that one is ready to bear
the burden of the malice of fate as his own sins. Christ fully accepted his fate
and by this act fate lost its necessity. Everything, that was fatal, became a
free choice of the way of truth. Consequently, even death changed its meaning
– from being the end of life it became the process of transformation into a
new life.
In
the garden of Gethsemane Christ defeated the human fear of death, made his
choice according to the supreme will. Thus, he accepted the crucifixion
beforehand and overcame the frames of his fate, making it free from internal
necessity, from the fear of death.
This
crucial step established unconsciousness destroying determinism both externally
and internally by total freedom.
We
will not comment on the well-known fact that Christ expiated for Adam's sin and
made human beings free from the Fall. But his sacrifice means, that he
annihilated the Oedipus complex as well. The phenomenon of Christ involves the
idea of the Oedipus Complex in its pure stage - as aspiration toward its own
source. Christ, indivisible from the Father, simultaneously carries the source
of his own self which idea is given to him without motivation, from the very
beginning. Being the pure idea of originality, Christ annihilated the Oedipus
Complex freed human beings from the grasp of fate and located his sinful nature
in the perspective of divine perfection. That’s why adherence to the ritual of
the Christian Church (Prayer, Confession and Eucharist) is the remedy against
unconscious mental disorder.
Thus,
we have finished the third stage of phenomenological discussion and discovered
the invariant between the two different variations of the complex.
Inasmuch
as these complexes are symbols of unconsciousness, this invariant can be
attached to unconsciousness as its entire phenomenon.
But
what is the phenomenon of unconsciousness? What is consciousness in its,
phenomenal reality? For the believer it is the Trinity - Father, Son and Holy
Spirit. This indivisible entity that exists in Christian consciousness
corresponds to the phenomenological concept of unconsciousness.
The
entity of the Father and the Son is expressed in the indivisible entity both of
self-existing essence and of phenomenon (openness toward the world). The feature
of openness is carried by Holy Spirit – it is through his blessing that
self-existing essence is opened toward the world created by him.
This is how
we learn unconsciousness in phenomenological interpretation - the essence
existing beyond consciousness, independent from it, which, on the other hand, is
consciousness taken in its absolute entity. This is an absolute substance,
self-existing, endlessly opening toward life as a phenomenon. The very model of
the above-mentioned way of interpreting unconsciousness is the absolute model of
Christianity - the Holy Trinity.
Literature: