Freud, the Borg, and Creativity
>> and you find that interesting? that should tell you something about yourself... but you would be wrong to view sex as the central point in Freud's work. although you are right that the "unsatisfied wishes" are usually sexual in nature, the wishes themselves are less important than the "entity" from where these wishes come to being. the most important aspect of Freud's work is in bringing forth the Unconscious as the prime mover of conscious thought. in a sense, Freud revealed to us that beneath the visible ice floating on the ocean is a much larger mass that is invisible to us but dictates the fate of the iceberg.
> so basically, conscious thought stems from the unconscious? and conscious action, which is guided by conscious thought, is also largely influenced by the unconscious? then since the unconscious cannot be rationally controlled, in would follow that our actions are beyond rational control -- which can be demonstrated to be untrue.
>> you are interpreting it incorrectly. Freud does not imply that our actions are largely irrational, or even our conscious thought. what he does imply is that there are certain "processes" behind our thoughts and actions that are not rational. in fact, like Jung, Freud is considered to have an antirationalist approach especially to creativity. let's take a creative endeavor as an example. what Freud suggests is that although the product itself is rational (such as a poem or a novel), the thought processes behind it cannot be directly and rationally explained even by the creator of the product.
> if i said that Freud is interesting, I'd have to say that this Jung fellow is strange. the concept of a "collective unconscious" sounds too much like the Borg Collective from Star Trek... you know, those beings who share a collective mind making them almost unstoppable in their quest to assimilate other spe--
>> Borg? did you spend your weekend watching TV instead of doing those assigned readings in EPSY 8220?
> if i watched TV all weekend, would i be able to argue that the reason i find Jung's concept shaky is that his implication that creative potential can be passed on to succeeding generations would imply that creativity is embedded in our genes? and this genetic implication is increasingly being challenged by current research that suggests creativity is too complex a trait to be explained genetically.
>> your veering around my question is impressive. you should try a career as a diplomat. as much as i hate to admit, i have to agree with you this time. I'm uncomfortable with Jung's concept of the collective unconscious. although his original concept is light years away from your stupid Borg analogy, even he admits that it cannot be brought into the realm of consciousness. if that is so, how are we to determine if these archetypes are in fact evolutionary in nature.
> anyway, i think both of them give the Unconscious too much credit.
>> true, and Kubie is offering a more logical balance regarding the forces behind creative thought processes. i like it that he acknowledges the role of the conscious in guiding the creative process.
> i like the way he slams the idea that neurosis plays a beneficial role in the creative process. i agree with him that madness cannot result in creativity unless there is a conscious aspect that is capable of self-evaluation.