beyond the superego
the Pneumasomatic Human Person
Two relevant excerpts from Freud’s “On Narcissism: An Introduction” (1914):1
“I may point out that we are bound to suppose that a unity comparable to the ego cannot exist in the individual from the start; the ego has to be developed. The auto-erotic instincts, however, are there from the very first; so there must be something added to auto-eroticism—a new psychical action—in order to bring about [primary] narcissism”
“The development of the ego consists in a departure from primary narcissism and gives rise to a vigorous attempt to recover that state. This departure is brought about by means of the displacement of libido on to an ego ideal imposed from without (ein von außen aufgenötigtes Ichideal); and satisfaction is brought about from fulfilling this ideal.”
For Freud the Id as such (prior to the division/split Id-Ego) knows neither differentiated sexuality nor time nor negation/contradiction.
1) Freud mistakenly takes “primal words” (e.g., sacer = holy/accursed, altum = high/deep, etc.) as corroboration of his notion of the indifference of the Id to contradiction.2
2) When it is subsequently shown that actually the “primal words” do not embody contradictory notions but rather are deictic in nature, i.e., depend on the context in which they are expressed, Freud is then thought to be simply wrong.
3) But in the thinking now occurring for the first time the Id is the place of primary formally deictic consciousness.3
4) Not simply wrong Freud like Oedipus was on the right road going the wrong way: in the thinking now occurring for the first time the Id is understood as primary formally deictic consciousness—the Id knows this and that. The Id knows (non-contradictory) difference/identity as the absolutely deictic real. First, it knows ‘this’; second, it knows another ‘this’; third, it knows ‘this this’ and ‘that this’: it is the primary formally human consciousness of the effectiveness of infinite negativity—of the absolute (non-conflictual) material existence of this and that. The primary informant of this formally human consciousness is the materially deictic consciousness that is the Body. This essentially differentiated formal/material identity of psychosomatic primary human consciousness in the thinking now occurring completely displaces Freud's fundamentally dualistic understanding of the soul/body relation as one linked by an intermediary borderland (Abgrenzung) occupied by the instinctual drives: "the concept of drive/instinct is one of those lying on the frontier between the mental and the physical (der Abgrenzung des Seelischen vom Körperlichen)."4
The Id in turn, together with the informant Body, is the primary informant of the essentially deictic consciousness of the formal existence of this and that that is the Ego whose existence qua actual is as the Ego beyond beyond Ego (the Ego beyond the Superego5). The ultimate ground of this integrated whole of the human person is the Ego absolutely embodied absolutely qualified.6
Thinking he knows what he doesn’t know (the context, the person who he is) Oedipus takes this road (to Thebes) instead of that road (to Corinth) and meets his father at the place ‘where three roads meet’ thinking (non-contextually) this man (old enough to be his father) is not that man (his father). Not recognizing the absolutely deictic reality of this and that (= not ‘taking the fork in the road’ à la Yogi Berra) he and Freud fail to understand that the intelligible basis for action is absolutely deictic/contextual. Without the absolutely contextual understanding of reality now actually existing for the first time, Oedipus and Freud effectively render the alternatives opaque/dense not perceiving/thinking that this road properly understood (away from his adoptive/symbolic parents) is that road (toward his birth/real parents). This opacity is not ‘knowing who you are’ (an absolutely deictic personal other-consciousness always and everywhere for the first time)7 projected onto alternatives whose identity is otherwise transparently deictic.
On the substantive analogy to "The Index of the Ethics of Simplicity" here illustrated (read counterclockwise, beginning with the 4D quadrant):8
construct the Pneumasomatic Human Person analogue as follows:9
Then in the thinking now occurring for the first time: in lieu of the primacy of the pleasure principle/sexuality, libido, autoeroticism, and the (self-conscious) notion of primary narcissism, the primary engine of human personal development is appetitio (for food/nourishment and for the real other/this or that10).
In lieu of libido (psychosexual energy) development begins with the appetitio (psychosomatic [psychic body] energy) of the Id. The latter’s optimal integration with the discriminatio (cenoniosomatic [social body] energy) of the Ego surfacing the body11 (in lieu of being a projection of that surface à la Freud)12 is the rectificatio (pneumasomatic [spiritual body] energy13) of the Ego beyond beyond Ego: die reale Ich absolute Einschränkung (in lieu of the Ichideal ‘imposed from without’14) qua created omnipotence.15 The effective ground of this pneumasomatic energy (the rectificatio of the Ego beyond beyond Ego) is the deificatio (macarosomatic [beatific body] energy) of the absolutely qualified Ego qua created omnipotence, i.e., the Word Incarnate embodied in Omnipotence.16
The primary engine of development appetitio first comes into existence in the form of the real other/this and that constitution (the ovum of the woman fertilized by the semen of the man) of the single cell zygote whose this and that essentially other constitutional structure is immediately manifest in and as the mitotic multiplication/cellular othering that precedes/prepares for its implantation in the uterus. Where appetitio is ultimately for food/nourishment and for the real other/this and that, then the first real other/this to the implanted blastocyst (the embryo) is at once the mother/provider of food/nourishment in whose womb embryonic and fetal development is carried forward until it comes to term in the birth of the child. To the mother qua this real other at once food/nourishment the unborn child is that real other developing within the womb.17
Notes
1 S. Freud, The Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud XIV, ed. and trans. J. Strachey (London, 1957), respectively, pp. 76f. and p. 100.
2 J. Kristeva, The Sense and Non-sense of Revolt, trans. J. Herman (New York, 2000), pp. 40ff.
3 D.G. Leahy, Beyond Sovereignty: A New Global Ethics and Morality (Aurora, 2010), Sections 1, III.1 and 3, Appendix 2, Backnote 1, et passim.
4 S. Freud, Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, trans. J. Strachey (New York, 2000), p. 34. For the distinction between Grenze and Schranke (a limit that knows no exteriority), and the thinking now occurring notion of infinite negativity as absolute Einschränkung, cf. Leahy, Beyond Sovereignty, Sections I and III.2, and Appendix 2.
5 For the Superego cf. S. Freud, The Ego and the Id, ed. J. Strachey (New York, 1960), passim. For the notion x or y 'beyond beyond x', cf. Leahy, Beyond Sovereignty, Section III.1 and Backnote 1, et passim.
6 See below in the text, including nn. 15−17.
7 Cf. Leahy, Beyond Sovereignty, Appendix 2.
8
Ibid., p. 88, et passim. For the real trinary logic (RTL)
relational elements 0,
.gif){kind=small}
, 1 and the
4−1-2-3 'minimum order' here underlying the ethical and pneumasomatic
analogical relationships, cf. D.G. Leahy, Foundation: Matter the Body
Itself (Albany, 1996), Section III.1. Where 'Creation/volume'
appears in the 4D subsquare understand volume as volume per se as first
encountered in the case of the unimaginable/unimageable volume of the
4th Dimension.
9 For the logical significance of the use of the double and triple 'not' in the following schema, cf. D.G. Leahy, Faith and Philosophy: The Historical Impact (Burlington and Aldershot, 2003), pp. 62ff. and 117ff., et passim. In the meantime note that both the 'This' and the 'That' here employed = not nothing = something = some being. For the notion 'properly lacking' or 'properly second', cf. Leahy, Beyond Sovereignty, Section III.3 and Appendices 2-4, passim.
10 With respect to the developmental primacy of appetitio for 'the real other/this or that' note this unborn child reaching out of her mother's womb during a cesarean section to grasp the surgeon's finger:
11 Cf. Leahy, Faith and Philosophy, Appendix.
12 Cf. Freud, The Ego and the Id.
13 For Paul and the Second Adam, cf. Leahy, Beyond Sovereignty, Appendix 4.
14 Cf. the text above and nn. 4 and 5.
15 Leahy, Beyond Sovereignty, passim.
16
Ibid.
Macarosomatic energy (from
Greek μάκαρ [beatific] + σῶμα [body]1)
— human persons beyond the superego — would neither be nor be
conceivable.
See also, on this web,
Ontic Ontological Logic of Human
Sexuality & Word's Body The Medium The Message & The Messenger:
Part II.
17 In the unique case of the divine Word Incarnate in the womb of Mary, the absolute otherness of ‘that real other’ to Mary, the exclusive provider of his human nature, inevitably manifests itself in the form of the masculinity of the assumed humanity, while reciprocally the masculinity of this human child immediately witnesses to the divine paternity. See also Ontic Ontological Logic of Human Sexuality & Word's Body The Medium The Message & The Messenger: Part II.