Where do 'inner voices' originate?

[davidv]

Not sure what you’re trying to get at. It’s a theory of personality, with the ego, superego and id being its basis.
basis /bāˈsis/
noun (pl basˈes /bāsˈēz/)

1. The foundation, or that on which a thing rests
2. The groundwork or first principle
3. The fundamental ingredient

What I am getting at is the Freund’s theories were his attempt at explaining personality. He named aspects of the personality as he observed them. They were conclusions based on his research. They were not the foundations of his research. The ego, superego and id where his explanation of personality, not the starting point nor a first principle. After the fact, there is some coincidence with definition 3. But that was not the meaning I got from your post.

 

[Robert_Sock]

What I am getting at is the Freund’s theories were his attempt at explaining personality. He named aspects of the personality as he observed them. They were conclusions based on his research. They were not the foundations of his research. The ego, superego and id where his explanation of personality, not the starting point nor a first principle. After the fact, there is some coincidence with definition 3. But that was not the meaning I got from your post.

False. They were the foundation (or basis) of his theory. Freud did no research per se, just observations along with intellectualism.

Noun: foundation
The basis on which something is grounded

LOVE!

 

[Counterpoint]

That’s a good question. I believe the “inner voices” definitely originate in the “unconscious.” But as to whether they occur intrinsically or extrinsically, I would say 50/50. And this depends on whether they occur in the “personal unconscious” or the “collective unconscious.” If the voices occur in the former, then they are intrinsic. If the voices occur in the latter, then they are extrinsic.

 

[Oreoracle]

The superego, id and ego are the basis of personality, as theorized by Freud. They are not related to the brain in any way.

With all due respect, even Freud’s arguably oversimplified theory would make little sense if we divorced personality from the body. For example, Freud believed the id operated on the pleasure principle. How do you explain the fact that the id was oriented to pursue pleasure without referencing the human body? The many preoccupations with sex that Freud studied would also be difficult to account for without referencing our sex drives, which we owe ultimately to brain chemistry.

Our personality can be divided into parts, as in multiple personalities, which is far more common than people realize, but I do not think that’s what you meant.

I have no doubt that we can observe distinct sets of behaviors in a person. My problem is the jump from that to the belief that separate personalities (or separate parts of personalities) are actually good representations of how the brain processes information and reaches conclusions. Humans have been notoriously bad at guessing how “complex” a given process will be in terms of the brain.

For example, grammar and vocabulary are regulated by entirely different parts of the brain. It would have been hard to realize this a priori because speech seems so natural to us that it feels like “one thing” when in fact it is several components of the brain working together. Likewise, some things we considered distinct are actually related in the brain. Observing behaviors is not enough to make these realizations.

They are deemed to be religious questions, and not scientific.

Would you agree with that assessment?

 

[Robert_Sock]

With all due respect, even Freud’s arguably oversimplified theory would make little sense if we divorced personality from the body. For example, Freud believed the id operated on the pleasure principle. How do you explain the fact that the id was oriented to pursue pleasure without referencing the human body? The many preoccupations with sex that Freud studied would also be difficult to account for without referencing our sex drives, which we owe ultimately to brain chemistry.

I was in no way trying to glorify Freud or trying to tie his theory to extrinsic inner voices. I was just pointing out his theory so you and everyone else could be clear.

I have no doubt that we can observe distinct sets of behaviors in a person. My problem is the jump from that to the belief that separate personalities (or separate parts of personalities) are actually good representations of how the brain processes information and reaches conclusions. Humans have been notoriously bad at guessing how “complex” a given process will be in terms of the brain.

Again, I was in no way suggesting that multiple personalities were somehow responsible for the inner voices, but clarify everyone’s thinking. Yes, it is complex, but that’s no reason to reject my contention.

For example, grammar and vocabulary are regulated by entirely different parts of the brain. It would have been hard to realize this a priori because speech seems so natural to us that it feels like “one thing” when in fact it is several components of the brain working together. Likewise, some things we considered distinct are actually related in the brain. Observing behaviors is not enough to make these realizations.

I think I would agree, but I’m not sure how this would nullify the theory that inner voices come from afar. I’m no neurologist, so I can’t really comment.

Would you agree with that assessment?

I would like to go back to my being a contemplative, which is my primary source for gaining spiritual insight. I’m not really convinced that God would want us to pursue this line of religious inquiry.

A few questions for you: Do you believe that God and His Holy Angels communicate with us? Do you agree that inner voices are one viable way for Him to accomplish this?

 

[Robert_Sock]

Oreoracle,

I forgot that you’re an Atheist. Sorry.

LOVE!

 

[Counterpoint]

Just as an aside. Freudian psychology is not inherently materialistic. In fact, Freud seemed to presuppose some form of interaction dualism with his proposal of “psychic energy.” (Psychic energy, as opposed to physical energy, cannot be quantitatively measure. However, psychic energy can be converted to physical energy and vice versa. Indeed, this is the theoretical basis for psychosomatic medicine.)

 

[Aloysium]

Freudian theories were not materialistic; he abandonned his attempt at explaining neurosis on a neurological basis, on the workings of the brain.
His aim was to create a science of the mind in line with “evolutionary” principles.
So you have the animal id which was founded on more basic creative (libido) and destructive (thanatos) impulses/forces that were fundemental to the world.
The ego played a balancing act between the id on the one hand and the civilized superego on the other.
At any rate, it was a lose-lose situation where the cure involved leaving the solitary suffering of neurosis to join everyone in common human misery.
Freud, in his writings avoided music and the arts, apart from the symbolism they contained, since beauty points in another direction to a very different picture of existence.
Although I do not see things in the same way as he did, I find it unfortunate that such considerations are no longer part of day-to-day discourse - further evidence of intellectual decay. Maybe it was always the case, perhaps it’s youtube, the media, wikipedia. Definitely one is subjected to views that seem increasingly simplistic, as they are reductionistic.
Sorry for the rant.

 

[Counterpoint]

I’m more partial to Jungian psychology, than Freudian. And Jung’s concept of the “collective unconscious” (which is basically a “world soul”) is directly relevant to subject matter at hand. It furnishes us with a theoretical basis to explain “inner voices” and other psychic phenomena.

 

[Aloysium]

I would have been an adolescent at the time. I recall hearing an interview with Carl Jung, where he was asked if he believed in God.
His response was something like: No, I don’t believe in God; I know He exists.
It resulted in a sense of relief - not only that intelligent people do hold to such things, but that the Truth can be known.

God who cares and is involved with us, speaks to us in whatever way we will listen. Thus, an inner voice may be that of the Holy Spirit.

 

[GEddie]

With all due respect, even Freud’s arguably oversimplified theory would make little sense if we divorced personality from the body. For example, Freud believed the id operated on the pleasure principle. How do you explain the fact that the id was oriented to pursue pleasure without referencing the human body?

I don’t think the poster you quoted meant to “divorce personality from the body,” which indeed would make no sense, as we are our bodies.

ISTM that what was meant was simply that the ego, et al, do not correspond to areas in the now known geometry of our heads.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Veector]

Inner voices can come from our imaginations, from God, or from the devil.

I believe St. John of the Cross has the best advice for dealing with them - for the most part, ignore them all. If locutions are truly from God no resistance is possible and they produce their good effects in the soul regardless. On the other hand, too much attention paid to locutions from God can mislead, says John: in the first place, the true meaning in not always in the literal meaning; and secondly, people and times change, so the communications become flexible (e.g., something predicted does not happen because people have repented).

Thank you, miss! May God bless u.