If there is a dichotomy of consciousness and unconsciousness, and if there is a subconsciousness too, then there must be a dichotomy of superconsciousness and subconsciousness too.
Subsconscious and unconscious are generally considered synonyms, the former a lay term. How do you distinguish them?
And then what is superconsciousness to you?
Unfortunately super has come to mean ‘really really’ or ‘best possible’ rather than something like encompassing or transcendent.
The intent was that “unconscious” refer to things without any consciousness at all; simple nerve responses, trees, rocks, biological growth,… And “subconscious” was to refer to the lesser elements within a consciousness, often partially conscious themselves.
By analogy, the subconscious of the old constitutional USA would be the House of Representatives with their narrow minded, limited scope issues (national emotionalism). The Senate would be the “conscious”, being far more aware of relevant foreign activities. And the “unconscious” would be the various physical concerns involved in communication: mail service, telephone networks, roads, computers, automated responses,…
And then relative to an individual, the nation’s consciousness, the Senate’s awareness of foreign and secret activities, is the “superconsciousness”.
Do you mean Arminius’ intent? Shelling? Coleridge? Not Freud in any case. Not that his version should be THE VERSION.
This seems like an idiosyncratic use of the terms. Which is fine. I can work with it, once it is agreed on. To me I would separate out, as different kinds of categories what you are calling sub and un-conscious. The latter being stuff we are not currently aware of in ourselves, though it is possible to become aware of it. Which makes it different from a realm where access is not possible. Or better put awareness is blocked, period.
[/quote]
I think blending what we mean with individual consciousness with entities like The Senate gets confusing, since the former use includes the idea of a single awareness and the latter does not have one - or? As an analogy fine, but not as ontology. Like one could have an ontology where God, say, has a superconsciousness, in the sense that it includes (and generally transcends) all other consciousnesses. Here is can be literal, since you have a unified center at all levels.
Oh it’s been decades sense I read such people. I couldn’t say who started what.
The issue is mostly one of language. “Un” means “without”. And “sub” means “below”. That which is below your consciousness is not necessarily itself without consciousness. “Unconsciousness” is a subcategory of “subconsciousness” indicating a level of consciousness not merely below the level of your consciousness, but also without any consciousness of its own (zero consciousness).
I think you are conflating a different idea. There are things of which one is “not conscious of” or “unconscious of”. But that is not what we mean by “being unconscious” (unless we say “being unconscious/unaware OF …” whatever). Something is unconscious when IT lacks any consciousness of its own (such as a rock). One might be unconscious OF any kind of thing, something with consciousness or without.
Every consciousness is a collection of lesser consciousnesses except for the most fundamental mechanism. Consciousness is largely fractal in nature. The “superconsciousness” would be the consciousness that is the result of the union of lower consciousnesses which are in turn the result of the union of lower subconsciousnesses, which is the result of a special union of unconsciousnesses.
It is just an issue of subcategories, categories, and supercategories.
I do not necessarily distinguish them, but others do. So I think that, if they do that, although there is already the dichotomy consciousness versus unconsciousness, then there must be another dichotomy too, namely: superconsciousness versus subconsciousness.
The opposite of subconsciousness. I have been told that subconsciousness is not like unconsciousness. According to that subconsciousness must be between consciousness and unconsciousness.
It has changed its meaning?
Friedrich Wilhelm J. Schelling (1775-1854) for example, yes, but more Eduard von Hartmann (1842-1906) who was called “the philosopher of the unconscious” long before Sigmund Freud (1856-1939).
But did he use the word subconscious? I think that came from Piaget who meant pretty much the same thing as Freud’s version of unconscious. But in any case, how do you distinguish subconscious from unconscious. We can develop the terms. It’s not that I want us to align with Freud, but rather that I don’t know anyone who uses both terms and have seen them used in the same sense mainly.
It is clear, that, if there is consciousness, then there must be also unconsciousness (I know, in English there is only the adjective “unconscious” but not the noun “unconsciousness”). But if there is also something that is both not conscious and not unconscious, then it can be said that it is “pre-conscious” or just subconscious. And if there is something pre-conscious or subconscious, then there must be something too that is post-conscious or superconscious. (Note: pre-conscious and subconscious are as unequal as post-conscious and superconscious). This gedankenexperiment should be followed by discussion.
James has already given a good analogy:
Well, not to a panpsychist, where consciousness is a facet of everything. Just as affectance or matter are everywhere and there absence is nowhere (depending on your system of beliefs there could be other terms where the opposite or lack need not exist. But more specifically with consciousness and unconsciousness I would say that my unconscious is that which is me but which I am not conscious of. In fact however, it is conscious. What? Well, you can experience this. Say you have some judgement of women. A negative generalization. Other people may know this about you, because of how you act to women, even one’s you just met, but never with men. Later, you may integrate, become aware of this pattern and you can feel how there was always awareness in it, but you did not share it. The larger you was aware - I mean how else could it affect language, notice the women were present, etc. - but you were cut off from this larger you. It was unconscious to you, but did not lack consciousness.
Preconscious in Freud was stuff that you are not in the moment aware of but have access to. Can dip into. I think that is a useful category. AGain, I am not saying we have to go with Freud, though in this case, I think he did come up with that term, but rather that we lose a useful distinction. Unless you mean that you are using subconscious to mean what Freud meant by preconscious. That I can work with.
And if there is something pre-conscious or subconscious, then there must be something too that is post-conscious or superconscious. (Note: pre-conscious and subconscious are as unequal as post-conscious and superconscious). This gedankenexperiment should be followed by discussion.
But let me see if I can sum up your use
Consciousness och conscious would be what we are aware of in ourselves.
Subconscious would be that which we can be but are not currently
Unconscious is that which we are barred in some way from being aware of.
Superconsciousness…
Like I said: if there is also something that is both not conscious and not unconscious, then it can be said that it is »pre-conscious« or just subconscious. And if there is something pre-conscious or subconscious, then there must be something too that is post-conscious or superconscious. (Note: pre-conscious and subconscious are as unequal as post-conscious and superconscious).
Let’s have a little bit philosophical anatomy and neurology:
Let’s say we have (1) a cerebral instinct, thus an instinct brain, (2) a cerebellum, thus a kleinhirn, (3), cerebral emotions, thus an emotion brain, and (4) a cerebral reason, thus a reason brain.
Now look at this picture and read the text below it:
1) Dark blue: Instinct brain.
2) Pink: Kleinhirn (cerebellum).
3) Red: Emotion brain.
4) Light blue: Reason brain.
Now, neurologically and psychoanalytically, Freud would perhaps say that the instinct brain is neurologically what the “Es” (in English: “Id”) and “das Unbewußte” (English: “the unconscious”) psychoanalytically is, that the reason brain is what the “Ich” (English: “I”, “ego”“self”) and “das Bewußte” (English: “the conscious”) psychoanalytically is, But with what would he correlate the “Über-Ich” (English: “superego”, “high self”)? Probably with the reason brain too. But it is something like “das Überbewußte” (English: “the superconscious” [my invention]). The supersonsciousness is the “group-brain-as-it-is-stray-represented-in-each-individual-reason-brain”, especially the moral system of a group (couple, family, tribe, folk, people, nation, culture … and so on). And the subconsciousness is the “brain-as-the-stray-parts-between-the-instinctive-brain-and-the-reason-brain”.
Would you say that you are a panpsychist, Moreno?
Panpsychism is one of the oldest philosophical theories.
Early forms of panpsychism can be found in animistic beliefs.
Arminius, In addition, there may be the problem with classification. What form does it take? A clear cut severance? In effects, is there clear cut neuro positioning from one area of the brain to the other, corresponding to their effects? Or, is there an overlay
of functions from different parts of the brain? If the former pre-describes what is going on, then the categorization of conscious and subconscious states,
present a problem in terms of what really is going on
in those states, how they are going to be categorized and signified.
The more likely scenario is that there are some conscious elements in what is designated as sub-conscious, and reversely, as well.
Point at hand: the dream within a dream phenomenon: where, sub realities of conscious
entities seem to be present. The same effect may be
hypothesized in a ‘super-conscious’ vs. conscious state.
The same dynamics of probabilities versus certainties may show up in sort of emphatic shifts. In a hypothesized unified field,within subconscious/sleeping state, the neuro-consciousness
has less work to do, therefore the shift is prone to devolve into more general and primitive symbolism, such as animism, and as such, used to be interpreted in terms of higher cognitive/conscious symbolic content.
No.
Only in parts.
Yes.
If so, then the effects would seem to correspond to the classification, as over-laid. Therefore, there may be an intrinsic shift toward a unification between the various forms of consciousness: pre, sub, and super(your def.)., ?
Okay, SUPER- versus SUB-, PRE- versus POST-, it is just a philosophical attempt, a gedankenexperiment. and I belive it is worth the discussion.
Agreed. I really feel it may emerge in practicum, over and beyond an attempt, but leave it at that.
Please, look at the following picture:
Imagine, you were the one on the mountaintop: What would you think?
Examples:
A) “Nice picture”.
B) “Am I alone?”.
C) “Do I have friends?”.
D) “It is about time to go to bed!”.
Would a superconsciousness help here?
Alpha & OMEGA
Imagine, you would have to choose one of those four options: Wich one would you choose?
I would choose A) “Nice picture”.
