DGB Neo-Psychoanalysis: Essay 26: The Id as a 'Life and Death Instinct Reservoir' vs. The Id as a Primal, Uncivilized, Undifferentiated 'Id-Ego'

March 23, 27, 2017,

Freshly revised with the first four paragraphs moving into new DGB-NP Theory.

Good day everyone,

In order for integrative bridges to be built between Pre-Classical, Classical, and Object Relations Psychoanalysis as well as Adlerian Psychology and other schools of Neo-Psychoanalysis, some subtle -- and/or not so subtle -- changes have to be made relative to Freud's Classical thinking -- particularly relative to Freud's emerging idea (probably partly spurred on by Klein's emerging work in the 1930s) of 'The Splitting of The Ego (into 'Ego-States') In The Process of Defense' (1938)

The idea of 'ego-states' became integral to the understanding of Klein's work and emerging Object Relations -- as well as the idea of 'topdog'/'underdog' ego-states in Gestalt Therapy and Bernes' expanded 'Neo-Object Relations' model in Transactional Analysis. Even Adlerian Psychology -- despite its allegiance (or alleged allegiance) to the idea of 'unity -- as in no conflict -- in the personality' -- gives 'allusions' or 'hints' to the idea of 'ego-states' if you factor in the possible idea of differentiating between 'the superior ego' and 'the inferior ego' in the personality -- the superior ego offering up one form of 'defense' or 'compensation' against the self-perceived 'inferior or insecure ego' -- which in my DGB model is further divided into the 'Anal-Righteous-Rebellious' Inferior Ego, the 'Phallic-Genital-Hedonistic-Narcissistic' Inferior Ego, and The 'Oral-Receptive-Nurturing, Approval-Seeking Inferior Ego.

These are long names that can all be shortened once the full potential integrative idea between Freudian and Adlerian Psychoanalysis (or 'Neo'-Psychoanalysis) is appreciated. This is ground-breaking DGB Neo-Psychoanalysis that has been more or less hinted at for a while now in previous essays.

This is before (and/or after) conceptualizing 'the id' and 'the ego' as both being attached to each other wholistically and functionally but with different points of emphasis that can allow us to view them as sometimes starkly different 'ego-states': the first -- the id -- being the 'primary' and primal, narcissistic and hedonistic, initially undifferentiated 'id-ego' -- but does it every entirely 'differentiate'?; and the second or 'secondary' more 'civilized' and 'watered-down', 'sugar-coated' version of the id-ego being the rendition of the id-ego that we mainly or generally expose to people in our social relations and which we use to deal with reality -- what Freud called the 'ego' as opposed to the preceding description of the 'id'. This opens up the DGB idea of 'the id-vault' which was certainly implicit in both Freud's early and later work -- but with the unlabelled distinction between what might be called 'the reality-id-vault' and 'the fantasy or phantasy id-vault' -- the term 'phantasy' often being used to distinguish 'bad fantasies' or 'nightmare fantasies' containing 'bad objects' and 'bad impulse' -- 'Thanatos' (death) impulses as opposed to 'Eros' or 'Libidinous' Sexual and/or Life impulses. Even as we are steeped in the foundation and/or 'ashes' -- depending on which way you want to look at it -- of Freudian Pre-Classical and Classical Psychoanalysis here, still 'The DGB Phoenix' is rising here -- and with it The DGB version of The Expanded Oedipal Complex with its 'Eros' and Thanatos' ('Good' and 'Bad', 'Life' and 'Death') 'Phoenix' or 'Moon' Rising...

There is a lot of fastly evolving DGB theory in these first few paragraphs -- without even going any further.

If we fully understand and appreciate that the boundaries or classification of any conceptual and/or theoretical system -- meant to 'as accurately as possible represent' the workings of 'the real, phenomenal territory' of the system that is being studied, conceptualized, and theorized about -- is going to always be partly 'bogus' -- i.e, based on partly arbitrary conceptual and theoretical divisions, boundaries, classifications that we have created in our mind that may not 'exactly fit' the structure and dynamic process of the actual phenomenon or territory itself but still useful to a greater or lesser degree in terms of teaching the system, and generating new and better concepts and theories and more empirical and/or clinical research if possible -- well, all of this is to say that we should not be shocked at the 'modifying work' of the 'students' of the 'previous master' who -- in wanting to take 'the previous master's work' to the next evolutionary level -- aim to integrate different concepts and theories and/or create new and/or modified concepts-theories that are designed to describe and explain, the 'same territory' with ideally 'better maps' than those articulated by the 'previous master'. You can breathe now -- that was a long sentence.

Nobody is perfect here -- not the previous master and not the new, emerging student of the master -- and nor is any theory going to be perfect -- they are all going to be based on better or worse generalizations than the theory before that the modifications were built from. And so we come to Freud's 'classic' and 'classical' division of the ego, id, and superego -- not perfect by any means but still hugely useful in terms of describing and understanding certain psychological events and phenomena both inside and outside of the clinical setting.

However, we have evolved since Freud ruled the psychoanalytic stage -- thousands of Freudian critics have poked holes in Freud's concepts and theories to the point where what used to be called 'Classical' Psychoanalysis is now often being called'Impulse-Drive' Psychoanalysis (Greenberg, 1991, Oedipus and Beyond) and most brands of Object Relations would prefer to dissociate themselves from 'Freudian, Classical Psychoanalysis (FCP)' -- generally his 'biological instinct' theory, and Adlerian Psychology has its own areas of 'dissociation' with FCP.

Meanwhile, I am still building bridges between all four major 'PNPs' (Psychoanalyses-Neo-Psychoanalyses) -- Pre-Classical, Classical or 'Impulse-Drive', Object Relations, and Adlerian. Other Neo-Psychoanalytic schools we will keep out of the equation for now.

I like the idea and the terminology of 'Impulse-Drive' (ID) Psychoanalysis as opposed to 'Biological Instinct' (BI) Psychoanalysis, the latter of which is to be equated with Freudian Classical Psychoanalysis.

Impulse Drive or ID Psychoanalysis suggest that not all impulse-drives need to originate in biological instinct; for example, as I theorize and teach, these impulse-drives could -- for all clinical purposes -- originate in The Socially and Psychologically (Cognitively-Emotionally-Behaviorally) Learned 'Oedipal Complex'.

This is one of the main differentiating areas of theory between FCP and DGB-NFNP. FCP is based on Freud's biological instinct theory whereas DGB-NFNP is based on a DGB Neo-Oedipal or Neo-Freudian-Oedipal Theory/Complex (DGB-NOT or NOC). Are you catching all these abbreviations? I would like to hold onto most, if not all, of them. But I understand that many of them will be lost like most of my previous abbreviations from previous essays. Perhaps some abbreviations are only good for the essay that it was created within.

So, according to DGB theory, the 'undifferentiated id-ego (uie)' is still alive and working into the Oedipal stage of human development (2 or 3 years old to 6 or 7 years old) and is the 'creator' of the DGB rendition and modification of the Freudian Oedipal Complex -- The Neo-Oedipal Complex (NOC). This has also gone by different names and abbreviations previously such as 'The Multi-BiPolar' Oedipal Complex (MBPOC) and the 'Quantum Entanglement' Oedipal Complex' (QEOT). Thus, the Oedipal Complex, by DGB theory, is not to be construed as a form of 'biological instinct' -- at least not in its entirety, maybe partly as a form of 'imprinting' if you will where the 'imprinting' phenomenon becomes the biological instinct -- but rather, the OC or the NOC is partly a genetic phenomenon and partly a socially learned phenomenon -- which is why I am calling it an 'epigenetic' phenomenon. The 'socially learned' part of the equation can be 'socially unlearned' through psychotherapy and/or self-evolving and self-learning over many years.

So now we come to the distinction by DGB theory between the ego and the id. The id -- or at least the unconscious id (ui) -- is the most primitive remnant of the early childhood ego that has been significantly suppressed and/or repressed -- buried, dissociated, disavowed -- relative to ongoing childhood socialization and cultural learnings that are meant to do exactly this. Let us at least partly arbitrarily say that the undifferentiated id-ego or uie is alive until about the end of the Oedipal Period of early childhood development (2 years old to 7 years old). By the end of the Oedipal Period, we are likely to have a pretty well-developed differentiation between the evolving ego and the more primitive, uncivilized, childhood id.

By the time we reach adulthood, the id -- which can be differentiated into at least two different parts -- the unconscious id, and the conscious id -- has pretty well established itself as the main 'alter-ego' of the ego. Since the OC or NOC was formed during the phase of the uie -- unconscious or undifferentiated id-ego -- therefore the OC or NOC is a product of the UIE and subject to a 'primitive, primal, uncivilized, private logic' that juxtaposes itself against the ongoing ego thoughts and activities of our adult day-to-day life. The two can be -- and generally are -- radically different. 'Common logic' does not equal 'Private UIE logic' in any way, shape, or form. The two are often, if not usually, radically different and what we might call 'UIE-OC or NOC Psychotherapy addresses the 'private logic' of the UIE-NOC-Connection which may be -- or almost always will be -- 'warped, distorted, over-generalized, over-stereotyped, overly biased, overly-narcissistic based on the naivety of the early evolving childhood mind-brain and its 'primitive brand of UIE-OC logic'.

This early childhood primitive brand of logic effects all aspects of our NOC (Neo-Oedipal Complexes) and/or CEBTs (Cognitive-Emotional-Behavioral Templates) including basic self-image, world-image, self-esteem, self-confidence, anxiety levels, depression levels, guilt levels, shame levels, narcissistic levels, hysterical outbursts, obsessive-compulsions (oral, anal, and phallic-genital), phobic levels, paranoid levels, schizoid levels, and so on. Very importantly, our NOC leads to our evolving, developing 'Character Structure, Personality Complex, and interaction between Conscious and Unconscious Psycho-Dynamics.

Since 'authoritarian standards' are often if not usually emphasized during our early childhood development and learning which often takes the form of 'imprinting' or 'introjection' and 'identification', it should not be too surprising to see the internal development and evolution of character structure follow suit in terms of what might be called 'topdog/underdog', 'inferior/superior', 'underego/superego', 'subject/object', 'good object/bad object' self and social relations. This is where two of the most important elements of Adlerian Theory can be 'introjected' back into -- at least my brand of -- DGB NFNP.

Specifically, these are the Adlerian ideas of 'inferiority/superiority' relations and the idea or concept-theory of 'lifestyle' or 'lifeline' which can be contrasted and juxtaposed against the 1920 modification of Freud's 'death instinct' theory which now becomes in DGB theory 'the death-line' as opposed to the 'life-line' of the DGB Neo-Oedipal Complex (NOC). Thus, the NOC becomes a system or network of multi-bipolar, ambivalent, often primal, primitive, uncivilized 'impulse-drives' aimed at certain types of 'stereotyped good and bad objects' that take the form of 'fetishes', 'fixations', 're-creation compulsions', 'repetition compulsions', 'mastery compulsions', transference neuroses, obsessive-compulsions, symptoms, compromise-formations, and precarious, often unstable 'conflict homeostatic balances'....that from a psychotherapeutic perspective may need 're-wiring' (re-education), and more healthy brands of 'conflict resolution'.

The current DGB-NFNP model of the psyche now looks like this which bridges the gap between six brands of Psychoanalysis and Neo-Psychoanalysis -- Gestalt Therapy and Transactional Analysis being numbers 5 and 6:

A/ The Secondary, Mainly Conscious, Ego and Superego Territory

1. The Nurturing (Supportive, Encouraging) Topdog/Superego;
2. The Narcissistic-Hedonistic Topdog/Superego;
3. The Critical, Righteous-Rejecting Topdog/Superego;
4. The Private, Shadow Middle Ego;
5. The Executive (Mediating, Problem-Solving, Organizing) Middle Ego;
6. The Public, Social Middle Ego;
7. The Nurturing (Supportive, Encouraging) Underego;
8. The Narcissistic-Hedonistic Underego;
9. The Critical, Righteous (Rejecting) Underego;

B/ The Primary, Primal, Mainly Unconscious Id Territory

10. The 'Unbound' Oedipal-Id-Ego-Transference Complexes

11. The Subsidiary Id Vaults or SIEVs (Superego-Id-Ego-Vaults);

12. The Neo-Oedipal Lifeline-Deathline Complex Templates (The Main Id Vault or SIEV);

13. The Id or IDCs (Impulse-Drive Complexes);

14. Chaos or The Abyss or The Black Hole (The Source of All Existential and/or Neurotic Anxiety and Excitement);

15. The Genetic Potential Self.

These are the main building blocks of DGB-NFNP in comparison and contrast to Pre-Classical, Classical, and Object Relations brands of Psychoanalysis, as well as Adlerian Psychology, Gestalt Therapy, and Transactional Analysis -- and throw in there as number 7 -- Cognitive-Emotional-Behavior Therapy.

Have a great day!

-- David Gordon Bain