Inspired mainly by the insights of C.G.Jung, I drew a scheme that shows a model of the human psyche and I will provide a basic explanation along with that. An important equivalent model is coming from Aristoteles which identified 3 levels of life: The hedonic, political and contemplative life, those fit to the three levels of my model.
The shadow is the basic biological existence: the simple and basic bodily pleasures of life. The body.
The ego is the political human existence: in the context of society, power and wealth. The mind.
The superhuman: a contemplative life, perception of meaning and transcendence. The full potential the human possibility.
The two lower basic elements are similar to the ones of Freud and Jung but simplified. It is the Ego in the center, our outside image and behavior together with the Shadow (in lack of a better term) which includes the unconscious and the basic biological evolutional instincts and structures. The shadow I suggest, could be considered to include Freud’s Id and superego and Jung’s collective unconscious.
Now the upper part is the superhuman / Übermensch which Nietzsche developed, it is a man that could create its own values and ethics rather than having presets as default. It is the full potential of what possible to achieve as a human.
The Shadow: It is also what we have in commons with animals, basic instincts and survival strategies, our basic biological function. Those range from dreams that might contains evidence of the collective unconscious and patterns of behavior like attachment, affiliation, care giving and receiving, altruism, aggression etc’. These are studied in the field of ethology.
The Ego: Is built upon thought and language, is where we separate ourselves as homo-sapiens from other animals. Language forces us make judgement and give value, outside language there are no good and bad, just what we call ‘nature’. Because of that we are conscious, responsible, bad, humans. Because we live in a cultured society with other humans we have to have balance with our shadow, meaning our instincts and impulses, they have negative consequences towards the group and therefore, as a social agreement, they need to be repressed. Repression is a constant battle between Ego and Shadow and the balance is the optimal functioning human in the context of society. The Ego can strive for rank, status, possession and territory but it is also responsible for discipline, order and it is capable of change and maintaining balance.
The superhuman: why does this term even exists ? I would like to look at it in the context of this model only as a potential of growth and change. The Ego and Shadow (Id and superego) are quite commonly discussed in the paradigm of psychology, but the third upper layer is not. Transcendence in this model is the option of break free from our Ego and Shadow, meaning from the shackles of culture and biology. Creativity is being used in the model as a way of operation meaning a re-evaluation of all values, either private or shared, of thought and of art.
Limiting factors of the Ego: In the context of society, education and family we are subjected to limitations and rules. Those can be determined by morals of society and by biological/evolutionary functions. The social and biological restraints are only promoting the interest of the group at the expense of the individual, in matter of fact they have no other function. Our biology is determined by our genes, the genes have the interest of promoting themselves, meaning they don’t work in the benefit of an individual but in the benefit of the group who is carrying the same genes. If every individual in a group (which shares the same genes) is acting in the favor of promoting the survival of the group, these genes have more chance of carrying on, of survival. Therefore, we find groups of animals in nature, within the group, altruism towards others is a very good genetically transmitted response strategy, it ensures the survival of the group and their genes.
Many concepts that we see a superiorly human, we share with other animals: altruism, raising offsprings, having empathy, but, they are all in their basis, genetically transmitted response strategies. Still there is a big spectrum of opinions regarding what separates humans from animals. I will focus on two basic examples as a base for further discussion, the one is guilt and the other is grief.
If we accept the theory of evolution, we look at every behavioral element in the natural world as one which contributes to the survival of a species. In the context of a group the basic feeling of guilt in an animal is just instinctive fear of consequences which derives from not maintaining social order and homogeneity. A pattern of behavior that is not fitting of the group order and hierarchy would impair the group’s functionality in the context of survival. With humans the feeling of guilt includes a feeling in the context of morals, in a much more elaborated than just an instinctive fear. Fear of moral authority is internalized as a moral complex, we find a complex pattern of connections only because language creates and imposes these structures, which in the bigger scale are related to culture. Aspects of value judgement and the awareness to consequences take place, sometimes making the very basic state of existence accompany with guilt and shame, it is coded in our basic western epistemology as conceptualized in the story of the Expulsion from the Garden of Eden. Most basic myths of the cultures we know are dealing with this duality of mind-body, good and bad, heaven and hell which shows us much of the side product of the human mind. It is also part of the human attempt of psychologically dealing with the fact of death, not like other animals, our human myths and make beliefs are the result a failed attempt to console with the fact of temporary existence. Then is the matter of dealing with death comes in the shape of grief, from simple creatures who are indifferent to the facts or mortality and death (say like frogs) to a more complex behavioral response (say like dogs) and at the end humans, there is a whole spectrum of responses, internal (thoughts and feelings) and external (behavioral patterns). The external one we can observe and the internal ones we will never know for sure, because its something we can only assume, even between humans the sensitivity or the way of conception seems to be different and adjustable as a strategy like the school of stoics suggested.
The post-Darwinian theory can explain grief (dealing with death or loss) in animals in terms of a genetically transmitted response strategy, meaning as a way of survival: “having lost its mother, and after the initial cries of protest are over, the depressed infant lies still, silent and waiting, conserves body energy, and avoid the attention of predators. By this strategy the animal can survive until reunited with its mother or adopted by a surrogate parent, moved by its depressed state”. The emotional weight we give to this sentence varies between different people, its only our perspective of the world the would choose which judgment to give this situation varying from full empathy through Anthropomorphism or an emotionless consideration through our rationality which derives from the model or perspective we culturally adopted (for example being a Christian or a post-Darwinian stoic etc’).
The only fact is, and that’s the important lesson, that our perspective is open to change, giving value is open to change, unlike animals, we are free to choose as individuals and transcend above our genetics our biology and our cultural-biased-perspective.
The basic fear and antagonism that one might have from realizing this potential lies in the heavy responsibility the each person hold as a human – this was discussed by the existentialists like Kierkegaard, Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus, it is the paralyzing effect from the fear of self-responsibility – which the existentialists also warns us about – not taking responsibility. Other reason for not realizing one’s full potential is simply from laziness, one-dimensionality, preference of other ideology and a blind belief in the current social system and norms, the belief that our collective beliefs are justifying themselves only by being collective – after all that’s how survival and how our basic functionality works though mistakenly though to be the other way.
The transcendence is one of humanity’s oldest goals: is to define the relationship between the mind and the body. Language for humans, creates huge challenges, the bridge between our thoughts, instincts and the world is not defined, or cannot be defined, yet is one that we cross many times. The model which I try to show is based on what is formed in the last century by many modern thinkers, the threshold is quite demanding but the potential one might realize is huge.
“And whatever may still overtake me as fate and experience—a wandering will be therein, and a mountain-climbing: in the end one experienceth only oneself.”
– F.W.Nietzsche