Unconsciousness can be well described by a situation or a state whereby the human mind is devoid of responsiveness to people, habitat or any other stimuli found in the environment. In a straightforward language, it is a state where the mind is functioning to its optimum or there is disconnect in the human coordination system. For instance any patient, who is in a coma, is described as being in an unconscious state. A point to note is the fact that what basically causes lack of consciousness is anything will hinder the normal function of the brain, for instance, brain injury or cardiac arrest. Apparently, an individual in this state cannot be permitted to make a decision or give consent on an issue (Easthope, 34). The paper seeks to explain that, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung ideas on the unconsciousness do not preclude one another.
Sigmund Freud argued that that that human being clearly fathom what is taking place in there conscious mind but they totally have no idea on the information which is stored or reserved in their unconscious mind. According to Sigmund, the human being should not be allowed to access the information stored in the unconscious mind since such information are shocking and threatening. Freud argues that human mind contain three basic parts, namely, conscious mind, unconscious mind and the pre-consciousness mind (Freud, 31). On the other hand, Carl Jung argues that there distinct between collective unconscious and personal unconscious. According Carl Jung, personal unconscious is designed to store unique experience while collective unconscious is designed to collect and organize the mentioned experience. He further argues that collective unconscious is hereditary. To support his argument he borrows most of his work from the Sigmund Feud. In view of this the two gentlemen ideas on unconsciousness does not exclude one another (Jung, 36-38).
According to Carl Jung’s ideas collective unconscious is described as the interpretation of dreams. He distinguished the collective unconscious to the personal unconscious by describing personal unconscious to be the personal reservoir of experience that is unique in every individual (Jung, 51). He also described the collective unconscious as the part of the human mind that collects and organizes personal experiences in a much similar way to every member of a particular species. These definitions meant that the immediate consciousness that acquires a complete personal nature and which is believed to be the only empirical psyche, is added to the existence of a second psychic system in a nature that is collective, universal and impersonal and is in some way identical in all individuals (Easthope, 67-69). The collective unconscious according to Jung is inherited and is made of an existence in the formed before or in the past, the archetypes that can only occur in a secondary form of conscious and which give definition to the particular contents of psychic. He also related collective unconscious to the mental forms which cannot be explained after the occurrence even by the individuals own these forms of mental occurrences are somewhat innate and aboriginal and are inherited shapes of the human mind.
In addition to his description of the collective unconscious, Jung gives much consideration to the shadow and the animus. He claimed that they differed from other archetypes in that their content was more related directly to the individuals’ personal situation. This meant that if the collective unconscious was to some extent less, then apparently the personification of the situation would be like that of an wise old man (Jung, 59). He also believed that for individuals to become self-actualized they had to possess the will to explore the deep ends of their unconscious and bring it to the fore front in order for it to operate simultaneously in harmony with the conscious. This would bring about a balanced union of every aspect of the individual’s personality which would in turn lead to good psychological health (Easthope, 134-136).
On the other hand the consideration of Sigmund Freud’s point of view, he developed an account of the unconscious mind where it played a vital role in the analysis of individuals’ psychology. He broke down the mind into two parts where the conscious mind was basically the individuals’ ego and the part was the unconscious mind (Freud, 45). The unconscious mind was then partitioned into the identity or rather the instincts and personal drive and the superego that describes the conscience part possessed by every human being. This gave meaning to the processes that occur in the mind without the individuals’ awareness. He described these processes using various techniques where he used a vertical and hierarchical architecture of the human consciousness. This ideology described the conscious mind, the preconscious and the unconscious mind where each lay under the other. This gave meaning to the way that important psychic events happened below the surface in the unconscious mind. This according to Freud had some sense of symbolism and actual important meaning.
Similarly, Freud believed that the unconscious mind did not just entail the events and occurrences that were not conscious but basically the facts and events that are actively limited from the conscious thought or rather the actual things an individual is supposed to be aware of in their conscious mind. This according to Freud was repository aspect of the unconscious mind where ideas, wishes, desires, traumatic memories and painful emotions that are not socially acceptable were eliminated or left out of the mind through a process known as psychological oppression (Easthope, 144). It is important to note that the contents left out by the unconscious part of the brain did not have to be negative in nature. He also defines the unconscious part of the mind as a force that can only be identified and its effects felt through the way they express themselves in the symptoms. This according to Freud was a way through which the conscious part of the mind managed to keep the unconscious part hidden. The thoughts that occur in the unconscious mind are not accessible directly to the ordinary part of the inspection that helps filter and sort the necessary and the unwanted material. However, they are supposed to be brought out and interpreted using special methods and techniques that require the individual to concentrate and manage to access the unconscious mind (Freud, 41). These techniques include processes such as meditation, free association, dream analysis and verbal slips. These help to conduct and analysis the mind through the processes of psychoanalysis where psychiatrists and other specialist are involved in the interpretation of the messages derived from the unconscious part of the mind.
According to Freud, the concepts of the unconscious mind were based on the concepts of various observations where he considered several reactions such as slips of the tongue. This reaction according to Freud portrayed individuals’ true feelings and reaction to a particular subject when they encountered a slip of the tongue (Freud, 79). It was also associated to the part of the unconscious mind that describes how the individual experienced a particular event or encounter. His theories were criticized and transformed by followers such as Carl Jung who aired their disagreements through responses. Nevertheless Freud’s’ description of the unconscious mind tried to explain personality, motivation and mental disorders by laying emphasis on the unconscious aspects used to determine behavior (Easthope, 234).
On the differences between the two psychologists occurs in the interpretation of dreams. The difference comes out where Freud defines the unconscious as the receptive elements that get catalogued in the human mind without them being aware or even knowing about it. This defines the environmental determinants that bring out the conscious acts that are hidden from the true self and act as driving forces for every individual. The contrast is brought out by Jung’s definition which states that the driving forces for every individual do not personalize their experience but instead drive the human actions. These driving forces are not universal or rather do not occur in every human being but are inherited evolutionary (Easthope, 211). This can be interpreted in other terms where the crucial aspect of humanity or rather those parts of the unconscious drive that drive individuals to do things without being able to explain or awareness that the explanation is irrelevant, have been directly linked to the evolutionary development of the species.
Another difference can be retrieved from the way they each defined the key contents of the unconscious. Freud defined it as the repressed wishes and fears that are not brought out in the conscious part of the mind while Jung described it as the archetypes that bring out the true self in individuals’ personal experiences. This difference is further experienced in the way they both describe the nature of dreams where Freud describes them to be the unwanted attempts that aim at fulfilling the wishes and desires of the individuals’ experience that are basically repressed. Jung on the other hand expressed his definition of the nature of dreams as the attempts made by individuals to express the undeveloped parts of the psyche mostly the archetypes. He later defines the functions of dreams as the compensation of waking attitudes and personality while Freud defines them as the capability to preserve sleep (Easthope, 105-108). The differences in their ideologies are prevalent in the way they describe the mechanism behind the dream formation where Freud uses his explanation to state that the mechanism of dream formation as the dream work that brings the unconscious part of the brain into a function or rather where the unconscious part of the brain is accessed. Jung on the other hand opposes this ideology by stating that the mechanism behind the dream formation is the symbolization of the true feelings and archetypes that are hidden in the unconscious part of the mind and give meaning to the aspects that undeveloped parts of the psyche.
The ideologies stated by these two professionals exclude each other in the way they describe the unconscious in that they differ in terms of explanation and the relevance of crucial aspects. The exclusion comes in through the way they describe an individuals’ driving force and the factors that make them react to various aspects or their true feeling towards an encounter. Freud considered Jung’s ideas as preposterous but in the real sense his ideologies in attempting to define perception and personality development are quite misleading. Jung’s ideologies gather more support in that they describe psychological experimentation in terms of the way truth and human behavior about certain can be extracted from the normal life or rather the living world. These can be identified by observing people from a psychiatric point of view and using internal analysis. However, regardless of their differences both have a common relation in the conscious and unconscious 132-135.
Works Cited
Easthope, Antony. The Unconscious. London: Routledge, 1999. Internet resource.
Freud, Sigmund. The Unconscious. London: Penguin, 2005. Internet resource.
Jung, C G. Psychology of the Unconscious. S.l.: General Books, 2009. Print.
