Sigmund Freud (1856 - 1939) was the founder of Psychoanalysis. In Freud's model of personality he came up with a trichotomy with the three elements described as the ID, the EGO, and the SUPEREGO.
Freud saw his work as 'Scientific' but an analysis of his work, when compared to the current interpretation of 'Science', suggests that Freud's work touches on general concepts so species-oriented that it is at a level that is pre-science. Science exists to solve problems, to seek solutions and so 'map' reality such that wherever we go we have maps that serve to guide us and so help avoid pitfalls. Science thus emphasises the algorithms/formulas behind expressions. Freud's work gets behind Science such that it covers unconscious algorithms/formulas that are behind the method of determining algorithms/formulas. Since Science is based on a method, all work that is 'scientific' must conform to that method, but if the work you do deals with pre-method states, as in what is BEHIND the method (and so includes the irrational) then how can that work be deemed 'scientific'?
The template discussed at this site traces the development of Science and the rational mind to the experience of fear when in a developmental state called sensation seeking. The fear is caused by the raising of a barrier, a boundary, as a result of negative sensations and this links Science to the EGO, where we find the emphasis on 'this' from 'that' (see later). Once the barrier is up so to avoid these sorts of problems in the future we become problem solving in that we seek to map what is BEHIND sensations and so bind to us a number of maps that we can use to avoid 'bad' sensations (or even create them and use them on our enemies). These boundaries lead us into concepts of prediction (Science) and prophecy (Religion).
This level of analysis would make Freud's work too general in that since it covers emotions etc it covers areas deemed outside of the rational and so outside of the realm of 'traditional' Science; it steps outside of the context we call Science since Science exists in the context that Freud's work touches on and shares space with Religion and all the mythology metaphors that go with this (which a single context, literal-minded scientist would fail to see the metaphors and so ridicule these metaphors as is done with the more ancient typologies of Astrology, Tarot, Qabalah etc all of which are metaphors and when taken as such can be useful tools. As with Psychoanalysis etc these tools have unique lexicons that can obscure attempts to 'clearly' analyse what is behind the words in the form of patterns of what/where 'meanings'.)
In the sense of metaphors, Psychoanalysis is in a class of its own when we compare it to Science etc but when we 'drop down' to neurological analysis so we see work such as that of Charles Peirce which also occupies the same space in the form categorisation methods. Both Freud and Peirce went as far as they could go and only with the current awareness of complexity/chaos processes and the acceptance of emergence can we 'refine' things to bring out the path which both Freud and Peirce followed and in doing so incorporate their work in the general context of 'problem solving' as well as identity seeking, security seeking, and sensation seeking.
In what follows I describe Freud's trichotomy and demonstrate these expressions as being tracable to the underlying influence of neurological structure and data flow as we currently know it to be. Thus we can see, as I show in Peirce, that the underlying, hard-wired what/where dichotomy, applied recursively, is the 'template' for all meaning and we particularise these meanings through the creation of metaphors (Psychoanalysis included).
In Freud's analysis of human behaviour he recognised that 'raw' life is very stimulus/response (S/R) oriented; habit oriented. For most lifeforms this S/R behaviour is acceptable (being more gene based) but for more complex lifeforms circumstances can develop where the response is in some way delayed over an extended period of time. This delay can lead to an increase in overall 'system' tension and this tension can rise as long as the response is not made.
Freud noted that this delay can lead to attempts to resolve the problem and so from this 'middle' of the S/R dichotomy emerges algorithms and formulas, behaviours that are intended to reduce the tension. Those that are successful become part of the lifeforms reportoire of algorithms/formulas to be used in the future.
Over time these algorithms and formulas would introduce the lifeform to the concept of CHOICE where two or more algorithms could be applicable to a given situation. At first heuristic methods would determine survival but over time the more successful methods could be passed on through education to the young and so this sort of feedback (or feedforward) would improve the survival of the species let alone particular individuals within the species.
Freud recognised that this source of feedback ,and so originator of 'rules and regulations' in that context is the originator of these concepts, could lead to the emergence of a managment system, what he called the 'ID'. The 'ID' is 'driven' by the Pleasure Principle where this principle is the 'drive' to achieve equilibrium by resolving any tension situations through the most efficient algorithm/formula available. In this context the ID cannot exist without some degree of feedback processing where the source of the feedback is the local (and non-local) context. This context is the source of negation in that the context is the cause of the delay in the response to the stimulus and so can be perceived as negative. Note however that the ID has no awareness whatsoever of 'out there', it is still in the domain of S/R.
In modern terms what Freud was describing was an emergence from an ever-increasing feedback situation, a characteristic of complexity-based development processes where these processes allow for the emergence of a 'whole' form having the basic characteristics of the form from which it emerged combined with 'novel' properties only expressible in this 'new' context. Freud picked-up on the concept of 'new' forms emerging from boundary conditions, the 'middle' of dichotomies in that the longer there is no response to a stimulus so the 'middle' of the dichotomy opens-up in that the delay in resolution acts to consider alternatives in resolving the crisis. This includes finer analysis of stimulus and response and so fleshing-out possible aspects that may be used to at least part-fulfil the requirements. (Another arguement is that due to the template of meaning discussed at this site so Freud's thought processes re boundaries and emergence were 'forced' upon him by the neurology).
The ID is very raw in form in that there is no consideration of consequences of actions, the ID is singleminded in its attempts to satisfy the pleasure principle and so resolve the tension. This unawareness of past or future, this very NOW orientation, leads to a very self-contained form and situations can develop where there is no relevent algorithm/formula to use and so we see what we consider inappropriate behaviour (aka 'out of context').
Originally considered more of a reflex, the ID developed over time to take on a degree of consciousness limited to consciousness of SELF. This refined ID develops from more states where tension cannot be immediately resolved and/or where CHOICE emerge in contexts and so a primitive decision making emerges including a response system to being frustrated and this includes the emergence of memory and so the awareness to some degree of at least the past.
This ability to memorise and use the memory to resolve tensions is called the Primary Process. Note that the moment you have a memory you have another source of feedback, an internal source, and so a distinction emerges between 'in here' and 'out there'.
With the primary process the ID now has an ideal image 'in here' of what is required to reduce specific tensions. This introduces the concept of INTENT in that the REACTIVE ID can now become PROACTIVE in that the ID now 'knows' what it wants and can go looking for it in particular. Note however that the ID is highly literal in interpretations such that there is no distinction between object image 'in here' and the object 'out there'.
Freud asserted that the recollection of a particular object where the object would reduce a current tension is a wish fulfillment.
In the context of dichotomies/trichotomies what is noteworthy is the single-minded, fundamentalist, self-contained, totalist characteristics that form the categorisation of ID. In the sense of energy, the ID is like the Sun pouring out unpolarised light without 'known' restraint.
If we review the behaviours of the ID it is logical to expect that with the presence of more feedback from 'in here' as well as 'out there' (although the latter is not explicitly recognised) so the same issues that led to the development of the ID would, when combined with resistance from 'out there' due to the impulsiveness of the ID, lead to the emergence of a more refined management system where there is a definite distinction of 'in here' from 'out there' such that the management emphasis is maintaining an 'in here'/'out there' balance. This management entity is called the EGO and it is driven by the Reality Principle.
Note that there is a fundamental distinction here in that the ID is monadic, it is 'ONE' oriented. The EGO is diadic and takes us into 'TWONESS' . The EGO does not replace the ID, the EGO shares space with it (and contains the IDs management capabilities but in a more refined, and diadic, way.) What we see here is a bifurcation process.
The Reality Principle introduces the concept of particularisation, of precision, in that a tension-releasing object is sought in particular rather than any object 'out there' being interpreted as 'good enough'. The Reality Principle, linked now with awareness of 'out there' introduces more refined feedback in the form of discernment and so a refinement of making distinctions and so the development of the use of analogies in comparing 'this' with 'that' and so from this comes a degree of learning about 'out there'.
Just as the Pleasure principle is serviced by the primary process, so the Reality principle is serviced by the secondary process. Just as the primary process deals with 'WHAT' (irrespective of whether we are dealing with object or relationship, everything is objectified) so the secondary process deals with 'WHERE'. Here we see the what/where dichotomy emerging in Freud's analysis of behaviour.
The act of particularising the 'WHAT' leads to the distinctions of particulars in the form of the 'WHO' and 'WHICH' concepts. The act of particularising the 'WHERE' leads to the distinctions of particulars in the form of the 'WHEN' and 'HOW' concepts.
The secondary process is thus related to concepts such as 'when' and 'how' and so we see the emergence of structured intent where we get into methodologies, ways of getting things. (From this comes the concept of reality testing where we try out an algorithm/formula/method to see if it works. This process of testing is a refinement of more primitive testing which works more through inductive processes. Reality testing sets a context within which we test and so we can modify the results almost immediately upon receipt of the results. ID-like processes are not as refined with their algorithms in that they have to process the WHOLE algorithm/formula, there is no ability to stop half-way and modify 'in real-time' and so there is a large 'leap of faith' in primitive inductive processes. When we get into EGO levels this refinement in testing becomes possible in that the 'leaps' become smaller with an increased sensitivity to context. In particular we seek a 1:1 correspondence of 'in here' with 'out there')
In considering the general characteristics of the EGO note that the EGO still has an object bias ('things') and its relational distinctions are 'chunky' with an emphasis more on 'wholes' and 'parts' rather than including the more abstract distinctions of 'static' and 'dynamic' relationships. We noted earlier that the EGO inherits properties of the ID but these are expressed in a more refined way. Included in this inheritence is a refined form of the pleasure principle. This 'refined' form deals with 'the what' but in the form of imaginary concepts as well as daydreams etc.
The monadic bias of the ID and the dyadic bias of the EGO reflect similar characteristics to Charles Peirce's distinctions of FIRSTNESS and SECONDNESS and my arguement here is that we are witnessing in both Freud and Peirce the use of recursive dichotomisations as we categorise where Freud and Peirces systems are metaphors for describing objects and relationships as well as metaphors for describing our describing of objects and relationships. Furthermore the intuitive assertion by Freud that the EGO contains manifestations of characteristics of the ID demonstrates a fundamental property of complexity development and that is inheritance. In this sense the EGO IS A COPY of the ID but being emergent has refinements that include distinction making of 'this' from 'that' as well as the ability to particularise. All of this comes from the application of recursion where the linear and the circular are combined and this introduces (a) characteristics of both and (b) 'novel' expressions resulting from the 'new' context.
The SUPEREGO manifests in Freud's thoughts Charles Peirce's concept of THIRDNESS. The state of thirdness is where we include consideration of the static and dynamic relationships any object has with its context (and by 'object' we include the concept of a person or persons.)
It is from the context that we get rules and regulations. Context acts as asserting a grammar that goes to control/guide expression in a social context. From a Science context, thirdness is the originator of hypothesis or story which once identified becomes the ruling context which we attempt to 'prove' as being 'correct'.
This emphasis on 'correctness' takes us to the concept of 'purity' and so the 'perfect'. In Peirce's model the hypothesis takes over asserting reality, context now sets the rules and regulations and so in the context of Freud's concept of SUPEREGO here is the source of social morality, justice, security, and social identity.
All of these concepts are based on the individual's relationships with the context and so from a complexity/bifurcation perspective we are dealing with static and dynamic relationships and how they determine the expression of the individual.
SUPEREGO development is directly related to the length of time the individual spends with their parents/family etc and so a STRONG relational emphasis and we can see the bifurcation process at work where the SUPEREGO has TWO 'sides', one being the ego-ideal and the other being the conscience.
The development of the ego-ideal comes from considering positive feedback processes in the relationship between individual and family. The conscience on the other hand comes from considering negative feedback processes in the individual/family relationship. (Note that 'family' can be parents, guardians, clan, culture etc) There is a definite emphasis on security seeking in the form of make 'good'/'bad' distinctions.
What is interesting in Freud's distinction of the SUPEREGO is that it can be just as literal minded as the ID. By this I mean that it does not distinguish thinking of a deed from actually doing the deed. This said, combined with its management emphasis (imposition of social rules etc and so 'their' rules from 'my' rules) the SUPEREGO manifests an internalisation of the ID+EGO of OTHERS (the many) in a relationship with the ID+EGO of the individual (the one). This link of the ID with the SUPEREGO also manifests itself in the concept of TRUST but not total trust in self (ID trust) but total trust in others (SUPEREGO trust). The EGO link to the SUPEREGO is the distinction making but with more of a relational bias than an objects bias. In this context the SUPEREGO has a multi-context, qualitative bias whereas the ID is more single-context bias with quality being limited to the assertion of 'correct' or 'incorrect'. In the 'middle' of this is the dual-context sensitive EGO.
In the context of energy flow, the energy is sourced in the ID. As it pours out so this energy, rather than just sinking into the universe and adding to entropy, is intercepted and used, fashioned by the EGO for its uses. The SUPEREGO obtains energy externally but due to its regulatory processes can draw (sap) energy from the individual, social demands can 'drain' the individual if allowed to. Not that the SUPEREGO being strongly 'relations with others' oriented acts to disperse energy, the intense becomes diffuse, but in doing so this can contribute to the summing of energies to create a 'new' intense energy source.
When we reflect on the above distinctions we find a bifurcation process at work but where in both Freud and Peirce the distinctions of STATIC relationships and DYNAMIC relationships have not been strongly differentiated and they have been lumped together into the SUPEREGO/THIRDNESS distinctions.
For Freud there is a development pathway identical to that of Peirce in that we move from a self-contained, intense energy state (ID/FIRSTNESS) through an ever increasing degree of differentiation until the source of all 'power' is in the context (SUPEREGO/THIRDNESS). At this stage there is a potential for transformation where out of thirdness/superego can emerge a 'new' firstness (and so an 'id'). In humans we can see this in 'spontaneous conversions', cult involvements, the 'eureka' concept and so on.
From Peirce comes a trichotomy-based methodolgy where, in his semitotics, so the first/second/third serve as the fundamentals for a science of signs. In this context Peirce makes the distinction of object, sign, and interpretant which we can link to Freud's categorisations in that object is id-like, sign is ego-like and interpretant is superego-like (in creativity it is the culture that is the source of value and so the source of interpretations. Thus the'educated' individual's superego contains a mapping of a cultures interpretation of quality. An artist is often more ID like in the intensity of creating a work often to the degree where mania is present showing us ID-like behaviour. Since the superego bifurcates from the ego and the ego bifurcates from the id, so there is an element if object-sign-interpretant in all three states but sign and interpretant require developed contexts to be able to express themselves in a 'refined' way.)
If we apply Peirce's distinctions to Freud we have:
Firstness (fundamental nature of a sign):
ID -- qualisign (total qualitative experience - firstness IN firstness)
ID -- sinsign (comparisons of experiences objects -- thing or event - secondness IN firstness)
ID -- legisign (rules and regulations behind the common experiences -- hypothesis -- law/habit - thirdness IN firstness).
Secondness (nature of sign relation to object):
EGO -- Icon (sign is like object -- no distinction)
EGO -- Indices (in some way actual connection with object)
EGO -- Symbol (related to object through convention/habit)
Thirdness (methods of interpretation):
SUPEREGO -- Rheme (sign of possibility)
SUPEREGO -- Dicent (sign of actual existence)
SUPEREGO -- Arguement (sign of law)