Subconscious and the Soul

[PJD1987]

So I’m watching this movie “Habemus Papam”, the one that was controversial because it supposedly portrays the Church/Pope in a bad light. So, naturally, I wanted to see what it was all about. Long story short, they have a psychiatrist come in to talk to the newly elected Pope and the Dean of the College of Cardinals talks to the psychiatrist before the session begins and says how the Cardinals are skeptical of psychiatry because the subconscious cannot exist if we have a soul. I didn’t quite understand this, or know if this was a legitimate Catholic stance on psychiatry and thus wanted to pose the question to this forum.

Can the subconscious and the soul coexist? If not, why? To me I don’t see how they can be mutually exclusive and don’t really understand…

 

[guanophore]

So I’m watching this movie “Habemus Papam”, the one that was controversial because it supposedly portrays the Church/Pope in a bad light. So, naturally, I wanted to see what it was all about. Long story short, they have a psychiatrist come in to talk to the newly elected Pope and the Dean of the College of Cardinals talks to the psychiatrist before the session begins and says how the Cardinals are skeptical of psychiatry because the subconscious cannot exist if we have a soul. I didn’t quite understand this, or know if this was a legitimate Catholic stance on psychiatry and thus wanted to pose the question to this forum.

Can the subconscious and the soul coexist? If not, why? To me I don’t see how they can be mutually exclusive and don’t really understand…

This is an absurd fiction. God created the unconscious, the subconsious, the consicious, along with our spirits and our bodies.

 

[PJD1987]

This is an absurd fiction. God created the unconscious, the subconsious, the consicious, along with our spirits and our bodies.

Thank you for your reply…It didn’t sound right to me, but then again I’m way out of my league with that stuff. I do know that my father was very anti-psychiatry though and didn’t know if that was due to a Catholic upbringing or not. I’m not sure the Church’s stance on that, I always see advice to people to make sure they go to a Catholic or “Catholic friendly” counselor on here. I thought for some reason there may be a conflict between the two…

 

[GEddie]

Thank you for your reply…It didn’t sound right to me, but then again I’m way out of my league with that stuff. I do know that my father was very anti-psychiatry though and didn’t know if that was due to a Catholic upbringing or not. I’m not sure the Church’s stance on that, I always see advice to people to make sure they go to a Catholic or “Catholic friendly” counselor on here. I thought for some reason there may be a conflict between the two…

There are schools of thought in psychiatry that are at odds with the Church, for example, the Freudian reduction of everything in human life to sexual conflict. However, the human mind, like every other part of our life, can go wrong and need healing.

Scripture says that the human heart (which, Scripturally, includes what we would call our mind) is “deceitful”. That means there are aspects of our mind that are hidden even from the mind’s “owner”, so to speak. Isn’t that what science calls the subconscious?

ICXC NIKA.

 

[levinas12]

Scripture says that the human heart (which, Scripturally, includes what we would call our mind) is “deceitful”. That means there are aspects of our mind that are hidden even from the mind’s “owner”, so to speak. Isn’t that what science calls the subconscious?

ICXC NIKA.

Good analysis … not psychoanalysis … but perhaps close to it.

Freud presents a pretty accurate picture of humanity if there is no divine Savior.

Despite the Enlightenment’s optimism, we are not in charge of our own house. This is a staple of the Christian tradition.

Yes, we have free will but it is very limited (original sin, demons). The Freudian unconscious is a marker for this unfortunate situation.

Freud offers us no illusions about a Godless world. It’s a very unhappy place.
So much for Oprah and Dr. Phil.

.

 

[guanophore]

Thank you for your reply…It didn’t sound right to me, but then again I’m way out of my league with that stuff. I do know that my father was very anti-psychiatry though and didn’t know if that was due to a Catholic upbringing or not. I’m not sure the Church’s stance on that, I always see advice to people to make sure they go to a Catholic or “Catholic friendly” counselor on here. I thought for some reason there may be a conflict between the two…

Science, be it modern or ancient, is not the purview of the Church, and like alll other human pursuits, she takes a reserved position on such things. It is her duty to preserve, protect, and promulgate the once for all divine deposit of faith. It is only when science comes into some sort of conflict that she makes a ruling on such matters. For example, when Galileo demanded that the Holy Scriptures be changed to reflect his finding that the earth revolved around the sun

The Churches concept on the nature of man comes from Christ, and the Jews, as salvation is “of the Jews”. All that God has revealed to man about His nature informs our understanding of who we are. One of the elements of that revelation is that there are parts of ourselves we do no know.

The 'subconsicous" is a Freudian term, and therefore, will not be found anywhere in the Deposit of Faith, the publec revelation of which was closed at the death of the last Apostle. However, we do find references that might be consistent with it.

Of the modern theories of psychology, the Jungian model is most consistent with Catholic faith, since he researched and discovered the spiritual aspects of man that modern behavioral science denies, such as the fact that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God.

 

[greylorn]

So I’m watching this movie “Habemus Papam”, the one that was controversial because it supposedly portrays the Church/Pope in a bad light. So, naturally, I wanted to see what it was all about. Long story short, they have a psychiatrist come in to talk to the newly elected Pope and the Dean of the College of Cardinals talks to the psychiatrist before the session begins and says how the Cardinals are skeptical of psychiatry because the subconscious cannot exist if we have a soul. I didn’t quite understand this, or know if this was a legitimate Catholic stance on psychiatry and thus wanted to pose the question to this forum.

Can the subconscious and the soul coexist? If not, why? To me I don’t see how they can be mutually exclusive and don’t really understand…

Don’t worry overmuch about this. Remember that you were watching a movie, produced by atheistic nitwits, with a thesis derived from the dumbest pseudo-science on the planet next to Darwinism.

Psychologists are non-scientists. To prove it, see if you can find out from any of them what part of the brain is the subconscious, and what part is the conscious? You will find that they have no clue, and will treat your question as irrelevant.

Yet, asking a psychologist or anyone researching brain behavior for the location of the subconscious is no different from asking a mechanic to point out the location of your car’s transmission. Would you pay attention to a mechanic who could not do that?

The movie’s plot takes advantage of multiple confusions— first that of know-nothing psychologists, and secondly the equally sorry mistakes made by virtually all religions in interpreting the nature of the soul. Here is a simplification which might help.

The subconscious mind is the entire human brain.

The conscious mind is what religionists generally call the soul, except that it is physical rather than “spiritual,” and is definitely a real component of the physical universe.

Although physical, the soul is immaterial and shows up poorly on brain scans and probes. Like all the really interesting things science has discovered, its existence will need to be determined inferentially.

So, there is no conflict between the existence of a soul and the “subconscious.” Both concepts are equally confusing, because they have been developed by confused people.

 

[Earnest_Bunbury]

Ah… the “Greylorn fallacy”. This is a purely materialistic view of creation.

As to the subconscious, we have dreams that if not consciously thought of after waking, will be lost. This is a subconscious level of thinking which must be put into the conscious mind. The distinction of the soul in relation to thinking or awareness or even effects of God acting on our soul could be, perhaps, considered as hyper-conscious.

 

[MWin]

The subconscious is a Freudian reductive term, which sounds like it denotes something “sub”-human. The unconscious is a better notion as it also includes spiritual content that are “higher” than the human condition. People often dream about Jesus, for instance. So, evidently, the unconscious is not only subhuman and instinctual. If there existed no unconscious, then people would know only conscious notions, and would appear like programmed robots, i.e. they would be soulless creatures.

To Carl Jung, the unconscious and the soul were almost identical concepts. He took into therapy Catholic priests who had lost their faith (also from the Vatican). He managed to restore them to their faith and told them to attend confession again. Jung was summoned by Pope Pius XII more than once. We don’t know what underwent during those visits, but it is believed that Jung received the benediction from the pope, and that they discussed the ascension of Mary, announced by Pope Pius XII in his Munificentissimus Deus in 1950. Evidently, this declaration made Jung elated. It seems like Jung had difficulties with the Catholic faith. When he was going to the airport to fly to Rome he suffered fainting-fits.

The unconscious represents a big moral problem. It contains both evil and good, both subhuman content and content of spiritual nature. The Holy Spirit can manifest via the unconscious, and can be said secretly to reside in there. It is therefore risky business to speak disparagingly about the unconscious, I suppose. One can speak disparagingly about the pope, but one should take care not to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, because it is living spirit.

In medieval times, a class of people attained a good intuitive understanding of the unconscious. These were the alchemists who personified the unconscious as Mercurius Duplex, who appeared both as a serpent and a spirit. So it was both subhuman and superhuman. The alchemists say in their books that the Mercurius and the Holy Spirit are, somehow, identical. These people were esoteric Christians who believed that, in order to to achieve salvation, it’s necessary to perform part of the work oneself.

Today, there are Christians, also Catholic, that believe that it’s necessary to confront the unconscious in order to achieve liberation. Arguably, this depends on factors of personality. To some faith is enough, and to partake in the communion. The alchemists said, however, that those who receive a call from the Holy Spirit, out of the unconscious, should heed that call. The Spirit descends upon the alchemical bride and bridegroom:

http://www.istanbul-yes-istanbul.co.uk/alchemy/images-rpn/images/amcl_rs02_jpg.jpg

Mats Winther

 

[GEddie]

However, the term unconscious implies a sleeping body and inactive mind; whereas the subconscious does not sleep with the body (it gives rise to dreams) and is never inactive in the normally working head. Subconscious is therefore a better term for what happens in the hidden files of our heads.

One could say that spirituality is in most folks, subconscious, because it is suppressed most of the time. Only by bringing it forward in our external life does it then become “hyperconscious.”

ICXC NIKA

 

[greylorn]

Ah… the “Greylorn fallacy”. This is a purely materialistic view of creation.

As to the subconscious, we have dreams that if not consciously thought of after waking, will be lost. This is a subconscious level of thinking which must be put into the conscious mind. The distinction of the soul in relation to thinking or awareness or even effects of God acting on our soul could be, perhaps, considered as hyper-conscious.

You have no clue as to what any of my ideas are about, yet speak as if you do. Your authority seems to derive from reading the complaints of a fellow dogmatist. You’d have done well in the Inquisition.

You have no more clue about the nature of the soul than a gerbil, and your understanding of “mind” seems about as good as that of a psychiatrist, or a really smart gerbil. Read a book. Get a mind. And until then, go away.

 

[guanophore]

The subconscious mind is the entire human brain.

Is this your own defiintion? It certainly is not consistent with Freud’s, who coined the term.

The conscious mind is what religionists generally call the soul, except that it is physical rather than “spiritual,” and is definitely a real component of the physical universe.

Consciousness is anything but “physical”, and the soul is much more than consciousness.

Although physical, the soul is immaterial and shows up poorly on brain scans and probes.

so, by what standard is it “physical” at all?

 Like all the really interesting things science has discovered, its existence will need to be determined inferentially.

This is the case with all things that are non-material, is it not?

So, there is no conflict between the existence of a soul and the “subconscious.” Both concepts are equally confusing, because they have been developed by confused people.

Freud was not confused. He was a scientist, and a physican, and he coined the terms and described them very succinctly.

 

[guanophore]

As to the subconscious, we have dreams that if not consciously thought of after waking, will be lost.

This is an interesting idea. What does it mean for a dream to be “lost”?

If the dream carries a message from God, is the message “lost” if the conscious mind does not retain the details?

Was Nebuchadnezzar’s dream (Dan 2) “lost” because

he did not consciously remember it upon awakening?

This is a subconscious level of thinking which must be put into the conscious mind. The distinction of the soul in relation to thinking or awareness or even effects of God acting on our soul could be, perhaps, considered as hyper-conscious.

Or, alternatively, as in the case of the dream, deep within the unconscious. The dream comes from the innermost part of the Soul, that part that holds the God image within a person. It is from this center that the Spirit speaks to people through their dreams.

Job 33:15-18
15 In a dream, in a vision of the night,
when deep sleep falls upon men,
while they slumber on their beds,
16 then he opens the ears of men,
and terrifies them with warnings,
17 that he may turn man aside from his deed,
and cut off pride from man;
18 he keeps back his soul from the Pit,
his life from perishing by the sword.

 

[GEddie]

Dreams are ‘lost’ if the body/mind does not awaken during them. Memories only form in an awakened body/mind.

For the dream to be ‘lost’ simply means that it goes unremembered.

If a dream contained a message of God, my understanding, FWIW is that the body would awaken in the process. God will not allow HIS message to be lost.

ICXC NIKA

 

[guanophore]

The subconscious is a Freudian reductive term, which sounds like it denotes something “sub”-human. T

This is not accurate. Freud was describing levels of the HUMAN mind. He never attempted to describe anything “subhuman”. Instincts are not “subhuman” either, but part of what it is to be human. I am not sure what you mean by “reductive term”. He is pointing out that not all information contained in the human mind is always immediately accessible by our waking minds. This does not equate to the information being “subhuman”.

**

The unconscious is a better notion as it also includes spiritual content that are “higher” than the human condition.**

Freud also defined “unconscious”. It is just that his definition did not include the spiritual content. But even Jung’s definition, which does contain it, considered that the God image is an innate part of the human being, as well as the activity of a higher power within man.
Humans are created with a non-material element of the personality that seeks a higher power.

MWin:

People often dream about Jesus, for instance. So, evidently, the unconscious is not only subhuman and instinctual.

Not sure what you mean yere by “subhuman”, but most symbols in dreams represent something other than what they initially appear. Dreams about Jesus are rarely about Jesus, for example.

If there existed no unconscious, then people would know only conscious notions, and would appear like programmed robots, i.e. they would be soulless creatures.

I think you hit this nail on the head. And in fact, there are so many people that are not in touch with their inner life, we have a whole society full of “soulless creatures”.

To Carl Jung, the unconscious and the soul were almost identical concepts. He took into therapy Catholic priests who had lost their faith (also from the Vatican). He managed to restore them to their faith and told them to attend confession again. Jung was summoned by Pope Pius XII more than once. We don’t know what underwent during those visits, but it is believed that Jung received the benediction from the pope, and that they discussed the ascension of Mary, announced by Pope Pius XII in his Munificentissimus Deus in 1950. Evidently, this declaration made Jung elated. It seems like Jung had difficulties with the Catholic faith. When he was going to the airport to fly to Rome he suffered fainting-fits.

The unconscious represents a big moral problem. It contains both evil and good, both subhuman content and content of spiritual nature. The Holy Spirit can manifest via the unconscious, and can be said secretly to reside in there. It is therefore risky business to speak disparagingly about the unconscious, I suppose. One can speak disparagingly about the pope, but one should take care not to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit, because it is living spirit.

In medieval times, a class of people attained a good intuitive understanding of the unconscious. These were the alchemists who personified the unconscious as Mercurius Duplex, who appeared both as a serpent and a spirit. So it was both subhuman and superhuman. The alchemists say in their books that the Mercurius and the Holy Spirit are, somehow, identical. These people were esoteric Christians who believed that, in order to to achieve salvation, it’s necessary to perform part of the work oneself.

Today, there are Christians, also Catholic, that believe that it’s necessary to confront the unconscious in order to achieve liberation. Arguably, this depends on factors of personality. To some faith is enough, and to partake in the communion. The alchemists said, however, that those who receive a call from the Holy Spirit, out of the unconscious, should heed that call. The Spirit descends upon the alchemical bride and bridegroom:

http://www.istanbul-yes-istanbul.co.uk/alchemy/images-rpn/images/amcl_rs02_jpg.jpg

Mats Winther

 

[greylorn]

Is this your own defiintion? It certainly is not consistent with Freud’s, who coined the term.

guano…
Mine, but not a definition. An observation. To falsify it one would need to identify the portion of the brain which is responsible for the subconscious.

Consciousness is anything but “physical”, and the soul is much more than consciousness.

Great. Then why don’t you tell us what the soul is? By that, I mean, provide a definition of its properties which encompass the soul’s relationship to the brain, and its survival of the brain’s demise, and purpose for its existence.

so, by what standard is it “physical” at all?

It supposedly interacts with a brain. Well, guess what? Brains are physical. That which interacts with something that is physical is itself physical.

greylorn:

Like all the really interesting things science has discovered, its existence will need to be determined inferentially.

This is the case with all things that are non-material, is it not?

Right— but it also applies to things which are material. We do not directly perceive matter. Touch, for example, does not involve direct contact with matter. Electric fields surrounding our fingers and other physiological components interact with electric fields surrounding matter. We never contact matter directly. Matter-to-matter direct contact seems to occur only in particle colliders and nuclear reactions.

Freud was not confused. He was a scientist, and a physican, and he coined the terms and described them very succinctly.

By modern standards someone who wrote a theory based upon non-repeated observations, and no formal experiments, on seven subjects would not be called a scientist.

Nor would someone who invented a function (the subconscious) but ascribed no mechanism to its implementation be called a scientist. Perhaps you should express your fondness for Siggy by calling him, “Saint Freud.”

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

So I’m watching this movie “Habemus Papam”, the one that was controversial because it supposedly portrays the Church/Pope in a bad light. So, naturally, I wanted to see what it was all about. Long story short, they have a psychiatrist come in to talk to the newly elected Pope and the Dean of the College of Cardinals talks to the psychiatrist before the session begins and says how the Cardinals are skeptical of psychiatry because the subconscious cannot exist if we have a soul. I didn’t quite understand this, or know if this was a legitimate Catholic stance on psychiatry and thus wanted to pose the question to this forum.

Can the subconscious and the soul coexist? If not, why? To me I don’t see how they can be mutually exclusive and don’t really understand…

A couple things may shed some light on this question.

(1) In 1953 Pope Pius XII gave an address to the Fifth International Congress on Psychotherapy and Clinical Psychology. An English translation can be found here. For some reason the Vatican website only gives a Spanish text. The Pope discusses and acknowledges the unconscious in numerous places in the speech.

(2) Jacques Maritain wrote a work called Creative Intuition in Art and Poetry. He talks about the unconscious in a Thomistic context. It is very illuminating. Maritain has no problem admitting the existence of the unconscious.

 

[greylorn]

A couple things may shed some light on this question.

(1) In 1953 Pope Pius XII gave an address to the Fifth International Congress on Psychotherapy and Clinical Psychology. An English translation can be found here. For some reason the Vatican website only gives a Spanish text. The Pope discusses and acknowledges the unconscious in numerous places in the speech.

(2) Jacques Maritain wrote a work called Creative Intuition in Art and Poetry. He talks about the unconscious in a Thomistic context. It is very illuminating. Maritain has no problem admitting the existence of the unconscious.

With all due respect to a Pope who did not know a neuron from a boson, and to well regarded Catholic philosophers, their opinions are not relevant to this conversation.

I am not disputing the existence of the subconscious mind. I am merely inquiring as to its physical location.

If the subconscious mind is not the entire human brain as I propose, then what part of the human brain is it?

After you snake around that simple question with irrelevant verbiage, here’s the follow up: What part of the brain is the conscious mind?

And after you give us more irrelevant references to ancient opinions, the final follow up looks like this: Other than the pseudo-science of psychology, do you know of any non-religious opinion-system which defines a function that lacks an identifiable mechanism?

Except for Darwinism, of course.

 

[guanophore]

guano...

Mine, but not a definition. An observation. To falsify it one would need to identify the portion of the brain which is responsible for the subconscious.

Why would anyone be interested in “falsifying” a spurious notion you created? I have never found attacking straw men a very effective approach.

You have created an inaccurate definition of “subconscious”, then falsely asserted that it is based in a “portion of the brain”.

Great. Then why don’t you tell us what the soul is? By that, I mean, provide a definition of its properties which encompass the soul’s relationship to the brain, and its survival of the brain’s demise, and purpose for its existence.

Since the soul includes non material properties, I don’t believe such a definition would ever suit your criteria.

the purpose for the souls 'existence is the same as for all of creation, to glorify the Creator.

It supposedly interacts with a brain. Well, guess what? Brains are physical. That which interacts with something that is physical is itself physical.

No, grey, this is a false conclusion based upon a false premise.

You see, Catholics believe in all that is “seen and unseen”, and that reality exists on a non-material plane as well as the material.

Right— but it also applies to things which are material. We do not directly perceive matter. Touch, for example, does not involve direct contact with matter. Electric fields surrounding our fingers and other physiological components interact with electric fields surrounding matter. We never contact matter directly. Matter-to-matter direct contact seems to occur only in particle colliders and nuclear reactions.

No wonder Jesus can walk through walls and such.

By modern standards someone who wrote a theory based upon non-repeated observations, and no formal experiments, on seven subjects would not be called a scientist.

Yes, the field of science has certainly grown. However, those who have continued Freud’s research have continued to make repeated observations with the same conclusions.

Nor would someone who invented a function (the subconscious) but ascribed no mechanism to its implementation be called a scientist.  Perhaps you should express your fondness for Siggy by calling him, "Saint Freud."

Freud did not “invent” the subconscious, but only recorded his findings. He wrote a great deal about the mechanisms of it’s implementation. It turns out he had a very godless perception of the world.

 

[guanophore]

I am not disputing the existence of the subconscious mind. I am merely inquiring as to its physical location.

Such a question emanates from a reductionist view of the human soul, as well as the brain. It is no diffferent from asking which part of the brain is responsible for “emotion”. Science has made it clear that there is no one single area of the brain that “houses” such functions, but many.

But if the subconscious mind is not the entire human brain as I propose, then what part of the human brain is it?

The human brain is an organ through which the unconscious, preconscious, subconscious and conscience mind function. None of these functions are restricted to a single “part of the human brain”.

After you snake around that simple question with irrelevant verbiage, here's the follow up:  What part of the brain is the *conscious mind*?

Since you have created a definition of subconscious that is inconsistent with any other known to science, then it is likely you have done the same with this term. Since you are just making up terms and proposing conclusions based on false assumptions, why not do the same with this term?

And after you give us more irrelevant references to ancient opinions, the final follow up looks like this: Other than the pseudo-science of psychology, do you know of any non-religious opinion-system which defines a function that lacks an identifiable mechanism?

It is curious you would be on a thread about psychology, when you seem to think so little of the discipline.