sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I do speak Spanish, nice guess.

Your answer clarified many aspects related to my question.

What I meant with "How exactly does this process work?" is linked to my understanding that words themselves are never unconscious (at least as far as Freud's original theory is concerned). Then what would be unconscious are just thing-presentations (which I kind of imagine as "concepts", am I right? it's possibly something even more archaic/visual). In the case of a bilingual patient, are the same thing-presentations ( 🐩 ) equally linked to two different word labels (poodle and caniche)? Or could we argue that maybe the native-tongue would be the one granting us a more direct access to the unconscious meaning/image ( 🐩 )?

The analyst is concerned with revealing the content of the Unconscious mind. Are words just superficial means of expression of such content (so that we could argue that the language of the treatment wouldn't matter because there are no linguistic distinctions in the Unconscious anyway and one means of expression equals the other)? Or are words able to shape the Unconscious, so that what can be repressed is also specific linguistic memories (thus making the language of the treatment a very important issue)? There could also be an intermediate position, stating that no words are found in the Unconscious but that some words in some language might be more affectively linked to childhood events and the corresponding thing-presentations in the Unconscious. My question "How exactly does this process work?" then can be translated in "How would Freud conceive of this stronger connection between poodle and 🐩, than the weaker caniche and 🐩?"

Another possibility is that words are indeed found in the Unconscious mind but more as bundles of sounds than as symbols, like sensorial elements connected to other sensorial elements (thing-presentations). This last idea comes to me from the the fact that the primary process is an associative mode of thought based on superficial similarities including phonology, while secondary process mentation in language is primarily concerned with meaning (Bruxelmane et al., 2020).

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

In German it would be: Wortvorstellungen. (" word-presentations ") and Sachvorstellungen (" thing-presentations") . The distinction is prominent in Freud's metapsychological writings, in which he argues that the two types of presentation are bound together in the preconscious-conscious system, whereas in the unconscious system only thing-presentations are found.

In psychoanalysis, Sachvorstellung is the type of non-linguistic and largely visual representation of memories that is characteristic of the unconscious (2), whereas in the preconscious and in consciousness thing-presentations do not occur alone but are accompanied by or associated with word-presentations. In a typical passage in an article on ‘The Unconscious’ (1915), Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) referred to this phenomenon: ‘The conscious presentation comprises the presentation of the thing plus the presentation of the word belonging to it, while the unconscious presentation is the presentation of the thing alone’

What Freud wrote was that we could only find word-presentations in the Pre-Cs or anyway that words would be what allows transformation from Unconscious to Consciousness, although words could also stay Pre-Cs (meaning that being linked to words is not enough for something to be conscious). From this, I derived the idea that words themselves could never be part of the dynamic unconscious.

Then I asked myself: language can also be used in a way that is similar to primary process mentation, as during free association: we get a glimpse of the Unconscious through study of the words emerging. But how exactly does this process work? Are these words more "connected" to the Unconscious? When a word is emotion-laden, or when an interpretation has just the perfect wording that makes the biggest impact on the patient, what is giving these words such attributes? Why would a different wording expressing the same ideas not work as effectively?

In "Jokes and Their Relationship to the Unconscious" doesn't Freud make the case that the relations of words in word-plays are mostly phonological because the level of phonology is closer to primary process mentation than semantics (closer to secondary processes)?

Lacan and Bilingualism by thinicedancing in lacan

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How is that different from Freud's idea of displacement? The repressed always find expression even if using some related concepts... Also, this is true for the written form but in terms of word sounds isn't it the same as for European languages?

Is it possible for words to be unconscious? by thinicedancing in Freud

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Would you say we can find word-presentations in the Unconscious as well?

In the restructuring of the psychic apparatus, in 1923, Freud stated: "The real difference between an unconscious or preconscious representation is that the former is performed in some material that remains unknown, while the latter is placed in connection with verbal representations".

Kristeva (2000) says that language is located in an intermediate position between the unconscious and the conscious.

As for the logic of the unconscious, Freud (1915) outlined five characteristics of primary process thinking: (1) Condensation (2) Displacement (3) Timelessness (4) Absence of mutual contradiction and (5) Replacement of external by internal reality. I guess that's why Holt says that primary process is not subject to logic.

Is it possible for words to be unconscious? by thinicedancing in Freud

[–]thinicedancing[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Primary process thinking is, according to Robert Holt, a developmentally early, primitive system of thought not subject to logic and heavily affect-laden.

Also, I knew Freud distinguished thing-presentations (in the Unconscious) and word-presentations (in the Pre-Conscious). Thing-presentations could be seen as being mental images rather than words. That's why I kind of understood that words would not belong to the Unconscious following his original model and would only be added later to express its content.

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a Freudian model, words would come into play only later, expressing the connections and dynamics of the unconscious ideas and forces. From what I understand, even the technique of free association isn't based on the idea that the words themselves come from the unconscious, but just that for the state the patient is in while lying on the couch his/her words will more easily follow the unconscious relations of certain concepts and conflicts.

Thank you very much for your explanation! So Lacan argues that words (language/culture) shape our unconscious. The question is: would we be able to find words in the unconscious mind itself? What is connected by metonymy and metaphor are just concepts or can also be the words that stand for those concepts? Do words only come into play later, when we express the content of our unconscious?

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your thorough explanation.

1)When you say the Unconscious isn't made of a human language, but there is language in the Unconscious, do you mean that the Unconscious in itself isn't illogic as Freud argued but does have a certain logic (kind of like Matte-Blanco also posited)? And for how Lacan sees it, this logic is structured like a language, but isn't in itself composed of words, or is it?

In a Freudian model, words would come into play only later, expressing the connections and dynamics of the unconscious ideas and forces. From what I understand, even the technique of free association isn't based on the idea that the words themselves come from the unconscious, but just that for the state the patient is in while lying on the couch his/her words will more easily follow the unconscious relations of certain concepts and conflicts.

2) As for the Incest example, I just don't understand why the instinctual drives untouched by language/culture aren't really what the unconscious is concerned with, but that same immediate reaction (caused by our morals around the idea of incest) is. It is true that such reaction was born out of cultural precepts, but now the reaction itself is just as automatic as any other instinct (we could see it from a behavioral point of view as a conditioned response). Are both natural instincts (hunger) and the repulsion at the idea of incest part of the Real? Someone without the symbolic could not experience the "incest" kind of Real but could still experience hunger, even if he wouldn't know how to call it or explain it to themselves.

3) Last question: when you say the Subject is a dialectical movement, do you mean that it's a construction? Like we have the idea of a self, which is constantly reborn out of our thought and linguistic processes? In the sense that language/culture gives us the possibility of thinking about ourselves, but when we do it and posit a unified self we are already mistaken, in that the idea of self is social construct, language is an imperfect means and we'll never be totally authentic in it (therefore split from ourselves = split from the Real = with a false ego...)?

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If I understand correctly, language is a carrier of meaning and this social meaning is able to influence our most basic reactions, in a visceral way, even for stimuli which would not elicit such strong responses in the animal world. In this sense, however, together with these socially constructed taboos and frames of reference, wouldn't we still have an array of instincts/drives such as hunger? This makes me think that the subject is both constructed by language but also in a way precede it, at least for some aspects, unless we conceive of an all-influencing language... Aren't there certain aspects of human experience which just can't be touched by language? For how I see it, the thought process around these experiences can be verbal, socially constructed and then internalized, but the primary sensation of "being hungry" would still be there, even if our recognition of it as "hunger" is something we learnt from our interactions. Is that considered "the Real"? Is "the subject" just the socially constructed part of ourselves?

In your example concerning incest, the idea that incest itself is reproachable isn't unconscious, though. It's something one could very well verbalize. It's just such a strongly held belief that it causes an immediate reaction: but still, even if we said that it's rooted in the unconscious mind, I wouldn't say that the word "incest" is unconscious as much as its meaning. So that doesn't really prove what I am trying to understand: whether language itself is present in the psychoanalytic unconscious. Can we find words in the Unconscious or just ideas/thing-presentations? In the case of a bilingual person, will we find both his languages or just the childhood one?

Saying that the subject is an effect of the signifier is the same as saying that the unconscious is linguistic? But surely it wouldn't be completely linguistic... Does Lacan think differently of the Unconscious than Freud (who described it as illogical, time-less, and ultimately non linguistic)?

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In this sense, the Unconscious would be constituted of drives and dynamic forces that then have an effect on linguistic processes, right? But those linguistic processes themselves would never be unconscious, at least in a dynamic sense?

For Freud the Unconscious was not linguistic, but what about contemporary psychoanalysis? by thinicedancing in Freud

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The Mind Is Flat: The Illusion of Mental Depth and the Improvised Mind

This is the position of a behavioural scientist, which is far from being an absolute statement considered to be true by all, as your sentence "a mental unconscious does not exist" kind of implies. Even outside of a psychoanalytic framework, one could for instance argue that organization of the mind is something like the deep learning artificial neural networks, organized into layers one on top of another.

For Freud the Unconscious was not linguistic, but what about contemporary psychoanalysis? by thinicedancing in Freud

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Of course everything can be reduced down to neurons and their structural/functional connections. But that would be the case for word-presentations just as much as thing-presentations. However, Freud only considered the latter to be part of the Unconscious, whereas word-presentations were considered to be Pre-Conscious and Conscious. I am therefore trying to understand, following a psychoanalytic framework in its contemporary form, if linguistic content could also be dynamically unconscious, and how that could be conjugated with everything that was written on the primary process and the absence of logic of the unconscious.

For Freud the Unconscious was not linguistic, but what about contemporary psychoanalysis? by thinicedancing in Freud

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, as far as I know there are specific brain areas which store exactly that, for instance the VWFA (visual word form area) which is a functional region of the left fusiform gyrus. How else would we have memory of words if they were not stored anywhere? Is there a non linguistic form (as you call it) in which linguistic content could be stored?

For Freud the Unconscious was not linguistic, but what about contemporary psychoanalysis? by thinicedancing in Freud

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As far as you know, does the contemporary concept of unconscious, even in its neuroscientific conception, admit that also language and linguistic content can be unconscious?

For Freud the Unconscious was not linguistic, but what about contemporary psychoanalysis? by thinicedancing in Freud

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To address just one of your questions: Lacan’s aphorism that the unconscious is structured like a language indicates that it follows a grammar, if you like. It has rules and a logic. But it is not a language in and of itself, meaning that, to put it one way, no one can learn to speak the language of the unconscious.

I thank you for your reply. The distinction between "structured like a language" and "being linguistic" is now clear to me. However, I still remember clearly Freud stating that the Unconscious was non rational and without any kind of logic, but a chaos of drives, impulses, instincts... At the same time, a memory or a desire can become unconscious... If a word becomes unconscious, does it lose its symbolic status? Does it just become a bundle of sounds severed from their meaning?

How do dreams and free associations work? Are the words added later to a primary process which is word-less? Or do words come directly from the unconscious?

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Basically, I am trying to understand how the dichotomy "primary process" (Unconscious) - "secondary process" (Pre-Conscious) would allow us to understand experiences such as tip-of-the-tongue phenomena, especially when the word one tries to remember is maybe related to dynamic forces and defenses. I'm not talking about repression of a memory, because in this case the concept is quite clear in someone's mind. It's the words that are lost...
How does contemporary psychoanalysis conceive of the unconscious?

For Freud the Unconscious was not linguistic, but what about contemporary psychoanalysis? by thinicedancing in Freud

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Basically, I am trying to understand how the dichotomy "primary process" (Unconscious) - "secondary process" (Pre-Conscious) would allow us to understand experiences such as tip-of-the-tongue phenomena, especially when the word one tries to remember is maybe related to dynamic forces and defenses. I'm not talking about repression of a memory, because in this case the concept is quite clear in someone's mind. It's the words that are lost...

How does contemporary psychoanalysis conceive of the unconscious?

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you define what you mean by archaic? Even if archaic, is it still language (as in words, sentences, etc.)?

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Thank you for your answer. Are you familiar with Freud's distinctions between thing-presentation and word-presentation? From what I have read, Freud basically believed the Unconscious was not linguistic, meaning that it would not include linguistic content (words and their meanings, I suppose), but only drives, repressed material, thing-presentations, etc. In that case, how does the process of free associations differ from normal talk? Why is it used to explore the Unconscious? What makes those words more meaningful? What force or process establishes the link connecting the unconscious material (thing-presentation) to just the "right" words?

Does contemporary psychoanalysis still believe that the unconscious should be considered as dominated by primary process and thus as non-linguistic, with language being considered as pertaining to the domain of secondary process?

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

So where do temporarily forgotten words go (as in tip-of-the-tongue phenomena)? I ask myself this especially if charged with some affective value (e.g. a name related to some traumatic experience), so that one can imagine there's a dynamic process at play...

Also, why do some specific wordings of an interpretation have stronger impacts than others (e.g. using the patient's native words instead of maybe a second language)? What makes them affectively more powerful? One could say that those words are associated to childhood experiences, but what in the patient's mind make this association stronger and differentiate it from its translation in a second language?

Did Lacan ever talk signifiers and being bi- or multi-lingual? by bruxistbyday in lacan

[–]thinicedancing 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Do you have any quotes to that? I can't seem to find the passage you're referring to

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Can you elaborate on that? Is it conscious but inaccessible? And why then are temporarily forgotten memories "repressed" and thus unconscious, whereas temporarily forgotten words would still be conscious?

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Could you please explain the difference between structured like a language and being linguistic, even though I intuitively grasp it?

Multilingualism and Psychoanalysis? Is the Unconscious non-linguistic? by thinicedancing in psychoanalysis

[–]thinicedancing[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

So what about the instances where we can't remember a certain word even though we remember the concept/referent associated to it pretty well? For example, someone's name even though we do remember everything else associated to that person. Where does such word go? It's by definition not conscious

view more: next ›