The Conscious, Subconscious, Unconscious

Introducing Three Words We All Know

Conscious. Subconscious. Unconscious. Three words we all know, thanks to Sigmund Freud, who first used them to posit a model of the human mind. A "topographical" model.

 

What is a "topographical" model?

 

A model which uses imagined space to make a great idea understandable. Thus, like a "topographical" map of the Earth which helps us to picture Earth's mountain tops and ocean bottoms, Freud's topographical map helps us to picture the landscape of our minds.

Why qualify this theory as "topographical" though?

Because there are many ways to hypothesize the human mind. For instance, Freud's later model, the id, ego and superego model, is what we might call an "anthropomorphic" model, a model wherein Freud uses three imaginary "people" to represent how the human mind works. And if we took as more prominent the duties he assigns these three people, we could then call this model, a "functional" model; a model of the mind based more on job descriptions (functions) than on job titles (roles).

In this article, we will be discussing our own take on Freud's topographical model. Why? Because we believe this model is still the most accurate model of the human mind, albeit, with one major omission. What omission? A hypothesis as to how this topography comes into being. In addition, we will show how this topographical model of the mind directly integrates with our own theory of personality, "The Layers of Aloneness."

Our goals? To help ordinary folks to better understand themselves, by better understanding these commonly used terms. And to begin to bridge the worlds of the personality theorist and the lay person. After all, what's the point of creating wonderful theories about how human beings work if the objects of these theories; human beings, can not understand the ideas for themselves.

Where do we start? We'll begin by describing, in more detail, what makes these ideas important.

"Logic Makes the Heart Grow Colder"

Why is it so important to know how our minds develop anyway?

For one thing, knowing allows us to understand how visualization heals. No coincidence Freud's beginnings were rooted in the visual. In fact, in addition to his visual topography of the mind, he also used a visual therapy; "hypnosis." Which he later abandoned, along with his interest in a topographical model of the mind.

What else do we gain from knowing how our minds develop?

We get to better focus our healing efforts, by using a "map of the mind" to guide us to the very "source time" our our injuries. This, in fact, is one of the greatest benefits and potentially can save people years of therapy.

Perhaps what is most important though is that by knowing how our minds develop, we can begin to understand what prevents us from healing. And why many of us can spend years and years genuinely trying to unravel what is in our minds only to end up just as confused as when we started.

So what does prevent healing?

Mainly just one thing. We base most of our attempts to heal on something which is faulty. We base these attempts on "why logic."

And what exactly is "why logic?"

"Why logic" is the psychological reasons people make up for "why things happen." Most people drive themselves crazy trying to figure out these "reasons," this despite the fact that "why logic" reasons can not heal anything. Ever. At best, they simply fool people into believing they can prevent their suffering from recurring. How? By using these "why logic" reasons to anticipate the "causes" of these situations and thus, avoid being in these painful situations ever again.

Do these "avoidance plans" ever work? Of course not. Why? Because "avoidance" does not heal. In fact, the more we avoid our wounds, the more unhealthy we get. Which is why unhealthy people have far greater chances than healthy people of ending up in the same bad situations again.

So OK, "why logic" does not heal. But is our obsession with "why logic" really so bad?

In truth, if this were all "why logic" did, it wouldn't be so bad. Unfortunately, "why logic" also leads us to something much worse than avoidance. It leads us to something I call, "psychological anesthesia."

What is "psychological anesthesia?"

"Psychological anesthesia" is the numbness we experience whenever we distance ourselves from the visual content of a painful event. In a sense then, we make being able to logically describe our wounds more important than witnessing these wounds. Why? Because by logically distancing ourselves, we temporarily avoid feeling the pain of these wounds.

Eventually, of course, because even the best "why logic" can numb us only temporarily, our wounds resurface. Then, when they do, we simply feel the same pain all over again but with a new face. Which then prompts us to ask ourselves yet another useless "why logic" question; "Why did this pain come back?"

The answer. It came back because we never actually healed the wound which was causing this pain. Unfortunately, because "quick relief" healing is so in vogue today, when our wounds do resurface, most of us turn, once again, to what we believe is the fastest route to relief. We turn to "why logic." And the people who do this are right. "Why logic" is the quickest route to relief. Unfortunately, because this relief is based on avoidance and not on healing, this relief is never permanent. And so the cycle continues. Again. And again. And again.

So is there a better way? Is there, in fact, such a thing as a route to "genuine healing?"

Yes, there is. However, in order find it, we need to first be able to see the difference between the relief "why logic" offers and the relief of "genuine healing."

 

How Does the Relief of "Genuine Healing" Differ from the Relief of "Why Logic"?

So what is so different about the relief "genuine healing" offers? And why have I just repeatedly used the word "why" myself? Haven't I been doing the very thing I've been speaking against?

Actually not. The "why" in "why logic" is very different from "why" I've been using, which is the "why" I call, the "natural why." What's the difference?

In essence, the difference lies in the degree to which we believe the word "why" implies we have made choices, conscious or otherwise.

Thus, the "why" in "why logic" assumes we do most of what we do because we choose to do these things, even when we have no memory of ever having made these choices. The assumption beneath "natural whys," however, is that we do most of the things we do simply because it has become natural for us to do things this way. Why? Because our natural inner programming has been altered by both personally traumatic (submergent) and personally inspiring (emergent) life events.

This idea; that our natural internal and external responses to life events are "who we really are" is what makes me call this second "why," the "natural why." More over, to most people (and despite what many theorists tell us), clearly, there are often no logical reasons for what we do.

A common example?

"Falling in love."

So do we choose whom we fall in love with?

Of course not. We can't even choose to fall in love with someone if we want to. And many people want to.

So why can't we?

We can't because whom we fall in love with is largely a matter of how we have been internally programmed. This means when we do fall in love, we fall in love with a person whose internal nature matches our own, healthy or otherwise.

And is whom we fall in love with logical?

Obviously, most times not. In fact often, peoples' "choices" are downright illogical. To wit, how many times have you wondered what someone you find attractive sees in a partner in whom you see a lot of obvious character flaws.

So again, what determines whom we fall in love with?

Whom we fall in love with is mostly a function of how our internal natures have been programmed by life, including how they have been altered both by trauma and by growth.

Another example? The way we repeatedly fight the same fight with our spouses and / or partners, over and over again, this despite the sincere vows we make to the contrary.

So is this fighting logical?

Of course not. Again, it is entirely illogical. So what makes us do this? Our natural programming. And the fact that the logically obvious good choices we can easily see in calmer times become inaccessible to us during these painful events.

This, in fact, is what makes Emergence practitioners prefer the word, "BLocks," to the word, "wounds." We call wounds, "BLocks," because the nature of wounds is that they block peoples' choices, including their logically good choices. How? By programming us to respond to life in predetermined and often illogical ways. And by burying our potentially "good choices" in the shocking experience of unexpectedly reliving a trauma.

More over, the way this programming works is that, once programmed, we then experience any and all similar situations as if we were in the same situation, including that we will experience the same outcome. In effect, we feel as if we have no good choices and have been compelled to relive this situation in the same way we experienced the original event.

In truth, we simply can not imagine how things could turn out any different. Because we can't, even when we logically know that "better" choices do exist, we can not make these choices.

Here, then, are the two main differences between "why logic" relief and the relief we feel from "genuine healing."

[1] First, the relief we feel with "why logic" is only temporary, while the relief we feel with "genuine healing" is permanent. Why? Because "why logic" changes only our logical experiences of these events, in the service of lessening our pain. Healing, however, changes our natural responses to these events and so, permanently relieves our pain.

[2] Second, with "why logic," at best, we get to avoid seeing the painful event. With "genuine healing" however, we not only get relief from the pain. We also get to see the beauty hidden beneath this pain, the logically "good choices" previously hidden in the blocked visual portions of these painful life situations.

So how does knowing how the topography of our minds evolve help us to genuinely heal?

By knowing how the topography of our minds comes into being, we can know exactly where, in our natures, we need this healing. And we can ground and guide these healing efforts in clear and useful theory.

We also get to avoid wasting time in the empty promises of "why logic."

So what's the first step to learning how to genuinely heal then? We must first learn the basics of this developmental map of the mind, starting with the "container" which holds both our health and our wounds. Once seen, you will have a practical model with which to better understand how the mind works. And how our personalities get injured, and heal.

Where do we start? Let's start by addressing the idea I've just introduced, that the container which holds "what is in our minds" is not the "content" which is stored in this container.

The "Container" is Not the "Content"

So what do I mean when I say the "container" of our minds is not the "content" in our minds?

What I mean is that there is a great difference between the "repository" which holds all our thoughts, feelings and ideas, and the thoughts, feelings and ideas themselves. The first idea is the "container" itself; the second, the "content" within this container.

In the theory we are about to discuss, we base much on a metaphor which explains how we store what is in our minds. More over, in this metaphor, the "mind" is not what we think, feel, say or do. Rather, it is only the container which holds these things. The conscious, subconscious, and unconscious then, are this container's three compartments.

So what does this container of the mind look like? Does it, in fact, literally exist?

To answer whether it literally exists or not first, the answer is yes. And no. You see, while this container does literally exist, it exists only in the sense that the frets on a fretless bass exist.

Do you know this image? To see it, imagine the neck of an electric bass guitar. Now imagine you look closer at the neck, so as to see the horizontal metal bars running at intervals across the neck of the guitar beneath the strings.

These metal lines are actually quite similar to the lines on a ruler, in that they measure something. In this case, however, rather than measuring physical distance, these lines measure musical intervals; the distances between musical notes.

Now imagine a bass which looks exactly the same, except that this second bass has no metal markings on the neck. And if you have trouble envisioning this, imagine an upright acoustical bass, the kind classical musicians play. These basses do not have frets.

Musicians sometimes call these basses, "fretless" basses, and at times, these basses have the same body and strings as fretted basses but without the metal fret markings on the neck.

So here's the question. Do "frets" exist on a fretless bass?

The answer. To a bass player, they do. But only in the bassist's mind. In fact, without being able to "see" these markings, a bass player could not play a "fretless bass." At least in tune, that is.

So is being able to literally see the three compartments of our minds this important? Very much so. And in a way very similar to how a fretless bass player sees frets on his or her bass, these three compartments literally do exist.

What does not literally exist, of course, is any literal separation between these three containers. Why not? Because these three states of consciousness are, in truth, only a way to measure approximate "degrees of consciousness."

In actuality then, we each have, within our minds, a "continuum of consciousness"; a scale of consciousness from being fully conscious to being profoundly unconscious. Or as we say more frequently, a continuum which ranges from being deeply in a trace state to being deeply in shock.

Why pretend this continuum exists in three separate parts though if it doesn't really?

Because by dividing this continuum into three separate sections, we can better grasp how our minds function. And develop. How? By using what, in essence, is simply a way to approximate how our minds organize our life experiences, in a sense, as a sort of imaginary library in which the books are stored in three rooms.

So the question is, are we born with this storage system intact?

Freud and others have assumed we do.

But are we?

Let's see.

 

Introducing the First Level: the Level of the "Conscious"

So were they right? Are we born with the container of our minds completely formed?

Let's start with this. For many years now, those who believe in the "unconscious" have assumed we are all born with these three levels of the mind intact; a conscious, a subconscious, and an unconscious, (or in Freud's original words, a conscious system, a preconscious system, and an unconscious system). This assumption, in fact, is so taken for granted that few theorists ever mention the possibility this system exists in any other way.

So are they right? Are we born with all three compartments of our minds in place?

We believe not. More over, there is much empirical evidence to support this statement. Including the most obvious proof; direct observations of children. Hopefully, what I'm about to offer will at least provoke in you an interest in looking for yourself. For now though, please allow me to set aside any questions as to whether this statement is true or not and simply ask you this: If we are not born with all three levels of the mind intact, then what are our minds like at birth?

At birth, our minds have only one level; a "conscious" level.

And where are the other two levels?

The other two levels do not develop until later in life, beginning with the development of subconscious, somewhere around age two, and then completing with the development of the unconscious, somewhere around age seven.

Now let's explore the evidence. Is there anything in fact to support this hypothesis? To see, let's look at what it would be like to be living with a one level mind? Can we, in fact, glean anything about this from direct observations?

What is it Like Living with a One Level Mind?

To see, begin by trying to imagine what being in this state would be like. What would it be like to live with a one level mind; in effect, to be living in a constant state of consciousness?

The answer. It is very much like living in an ongoing trance state. Or like being in a continuous state of meditation wherein everything you do occurs within this meditation.

Certainly, being in this kind of conscious state would make you very open. This, in fact, is what makes babies so vulnerable to injury at this age. They basically live, twenty four / seven, in the same state of consciousness people go into during meditation. Which also happens to be the state of mind stage hypnotists put people into. No coincidence, this is also the same state of being traumatic events put people into.

What am I saying?

I am saying that, in all three of these kinds of life events, people experience life in the same level of the mind; in the Conscious Level. Which also happens to be the only level of mind wherein our personalities can get programmed; as babies; by hypnotists; and by traumatic life events.

In a sense then, injury programs our personalities very similarly to how stage hypnotists program people. Only with stage hypnotists, it's all done in fun and no one actually gets harmed. Whereas with traumatic events, we suffer a kind of permanent damage I call, "wounded learning."

What is "wounded learning?"

"Wounded learning" is a life experience wherein we learn we have no choices in some area of life. We literally become unable to visualize our choices, in effect, our visual ability to see these alternate choices gets blocked.

How?

Actually, there is a sequence of three experiences which causes this damage. This sequence is [1] hyperawareness, [2] getting startled; and [3] going into shock.

So how exactly does this sequence occur?

It begins with our first natural response to traumatic events.

Our first response? We go into a state of high alert, a state I call, "hyperawareness." Which is just another word for the state in which we become extremely conscious. Just like a baby. And just like someone who has been hypnotized.

Now if, while we are in this level of the mind, we also get startled, then we get programmed by this startle similarly to how rapidly collapsing, electrical fields program ferrous metals. What do I mean?

What I mean is, with ferrous metals, when they are exposed to a rapidly collapsing, electrical field, the pattern of the last moment of this electrical field gets programmed into the metal. We call this effect, getting "magnetized."

And with people, when they are exposed to a rapidly collapsing, experiential "field," the pattern they experience in the last moment of this painful event gets programmed into their minds.

And what, exactly, is the nature of this pattern?

Again, it is a kind of "wounded learning," a program which makes it natural for us, from then on, to experience any and all similar life situations as if we were in the same situation. In essence, we "learn" there is but one way for these situations to turn out, more over, that the only choices we have during these events are to learn how to better endure these events, and that any effort to alter the outcome will be doomed to failure.

What makes us feel so certain we have no other choices?

The startle response of the original event. In the original event, this startle caused our minds to go blank. Or to freeze in a painful instant.

More over, because it is natural for us to become programmed by rapidly collapsing, experiential "fields," this pattern of experience; to be startled and to then go blank or to freeze; gets programmed into our minds.

What does this do to us? From then on, we will be programmed to respond to whatever we were experiencing in the instant just before the startle as if it were a hypnotist's cue, a cue which causes us to relive this startle. Including that the screen of our minds will go blank. Or freeze in the last painful instant.

Thus, we literally become unable to picture what is happening right in front of us, including that we have any choices during these painful situations. In effect, we become programmed to respond as if we were Pavlov's dogs. More important, from then on, these scripts then bias our behavior so severely that we will, for the most part, passively live out these painful events as if we are merely passive participants in our own lives, more voyeurs to these painful events than participants. More over, even when the literal outcomes do vary, because we have become unable to picture what happens after the startle, we become unable to witness these variations. Including that our efforts can ever effect the outcome.

The result?

From the moment of this startling trauma on, our natures become altered in a way such that we will then experience any and all similar life events as if we were back in the original event, even when the facts tell us otherwise.

 

What It's Like to Get Wounded

How exactly does this play out in real life then? What is it like to get wounded?

To get an idea of what it's like, you need to picture yourself getting startled by something, for instance, by a wedding photographer's flash bulb or by disco dance floor strobe light.

Now picture yourself in either of these situations and then try to sense what the moment of the startle would feel like. How would it feel?

To begin with, in the instant in which you were startled, you would immediately lose your ability to picture anything on the screen of your mind. Including anything which happened immediately after the startling moment.

Can you picture this?

Can you also see how, for that instant, because you would have temporarily lost your ability to picture your choices, you would freeze in indecision? Even if you mentally knew and could later see there were possible choices?

Finally, can you also sense the "visual hangover" of the startle; a fast-frozen bit of visual information which would repeatedly reverberate on the screen of your mind?

Now let me ask you. Were you able to picture yourself in either of these two events? If so, consider this.

Regardless of which of these events you just pictured, if you pictured either one, then you will have felt these difficulties, even though you did not just literally experience the event at all. Why? Because you have just relived an injury.

More important, if you were to now try to picture either of these events as having turned out differently, for instance, that you did not lose you ability to picture what happened, you would immediately realize that you can not actually see any alternate pictures. Or anything at all for that matter.

So where are these alternate pictures? They are buried under the shocking experience of the startle. Along with all our alternate choices. and any pleasant endings.

 

What Keeps Us From Realizing We Have Lost Our Choices?

So what prevents us from realizing we have lost our choices? To understand, you need to ask yourself this question: How could you have just known what being in a startling event was like, if you were not just in one?

The answer? You have been programmed to respond this way. In other words, for you, it has simply become natural to respond to being startled in these situations.

Most notable, of course, is how we become programmed to lose access to our personal choices during startling moments. At best, we can logically infer other choices but have no way to actually make these choices.

This then leads us to the next step in our natural responses to trauma; the urges to know "why" we got startled. This, in fact, is one of the main sources of our obsession with "why logic." Which ironically is far from logical in that, no matter how hard we try, we will never be able to picture what went on during the startling moment. Unless, of course, we heal what is blocking this ability in us.

So being startled empties our minds. More over, being startled while in a state of high alert permanently disrupts our ability to see beyond this startling moment, by programming our minds to go blank, or freeze, every time we experience these particular situations.

In a way then, being startled while in the conscious level of the mind programs us to hypnotically associate whatever we saw immediately before the startle to the startle itself. This turns the last instant of life experience before the startle into a kind of dreadful "hypnotist's" cue.

In addition, because being startled so abruptly empties our minds of everything which happened immediately after the startle, we experience this emptiness as if there were a literal wall between us and any visual material which occurred right after this moment.

Finally, because, as Freud believed, we humans are programmed to follow the same laws our physical world follows, we then follow one of these laws, the law which states, "nature abhors a vacuum." Applied to us then, we are programmed to abhor an "empty state of mind." Which is to say, we feel compelled to fill in the voids which get created by being startled.

With what?

With "why logic."

The end result?

We fill in these missing moments with logical filler and because we do, afterwards, we return to our lives never having realizing we have missed anything, including that we have been programmed to believe we have no choices in these kinds of events. In other words, we emerge from these traumas programmed to picture any and all similar life events as if they were the same from start to finish. Including the frozen moment of the blankness. Or in cases wherein we get startled very abruptly, as nothing but blankness.

In either case, the startling moments in traumatic events program us in such a way as to cause us to overlay this same pattern of visual experience and blankness onto any and all similar life situations, including onto life situations which occurred before this wound! We simply can not imagine having ever experienced these events in any way other than how the wounding event occurred.

Said in other words, being startled while in the first level of the mind; "consciousness"; causes us to hypnotically associate whatever we were experiencing at the time; the script of the traumatic life situation; with the experience of being startled. This then leaves us programmed automatically, similar to what Freud's intellectual rival, Pierre Janet, called, "automatisms." More over, this is also similar to how hypnosis programs us, in that whenever we experience the life "cue" again, we will from then on hypnotically respond to it as if there was but one way for us to respond to this event, including that there is no way to change the outcome of this kind of event.

Of course, there are many variations to this life script. But what all these "wounding" scripts have in common is that the startling moment empties our minds, no matter how healthy and spiritually evolved we may be. This means that regardless of how spiritually or intellectually evolved we may be, we literally lose our ability to picture whatever is happening from the moment of the startle on. Permanently. For the rest of our lives. Again, unless we heal this BLock.

Oddly, the similarity between us and ferrous metals does not end at being programmed with a pattern. Thus, like ferrous metals, which become magnetized afterwards and so, attract other magnetized metals, we, too feel magnetically attracted to something after these startling events. To what? To similarly magnetized people, meaning, to similarly wounded human beings. Which is what ups the odds we will keep reliving these painful events, over and over again.

Finally, because no human being can experience their choices if they can not picture them, being frozen in this non visual state means we lose our ability to make healthier choices, even when we know they logically exist. Which is just another way to say people in shock can not make conscious choices.

The Good Side of Being in Shock

Obviously, being in shock has its down side. But there is also a good side to being in shock. What is it? That being in shock protects us from further injury. How? By preventing us from being in the only level of the mind wherein we can be programmed; the Level of the Conscious mind.

Said in other words, in order for us to be hypnotically programmed, we must first be in a heightened state of awareness. And since shock is the state of "deadened awareness," being in shock protects us from further injury similar to how a blown fuse protects a building from injury.

This idea in fact, that we can be injured only while in the first level of the mind, is one of the founding principles on which all of Emergence theory and practice is based. More over, to see this idea as true requires only that you ask someone who has been injured to picture the situation.

What you'll find is, all people, when asked to picture a wounding event, will, at some point during the course of trying to picture this event, lose their ability to visualize. More over, if, at the point of this loss, you were to ask the person to try to visually make up what happened next, you will find they will still be unable to picture anything. Nothing at all. At least, until they heal whatever has been blocking their ability to picture past the startle point.

Oddly, this same blocked visual ability occurs in people after they heal as well, only in reverse. Thus, if you were to ask people, after they've healed, to imagine having no choices in this situation, they will similarly be unable to picture this, even when asked to make this inability up.

What Has the Startling Moment Been Blocking?

So what is the nature of what gets visually blocked? To know, consider how genuine healing changes people. What I mean by this is that, when people heal, what changes is that they can then easily bring to mind very clear pictures of the choices they might make during these kinds of life events, More over, these newly visible choices always include an almost unlimited amount of "good' choices.

In addition, this restored ability to picture the previously hidden "good" choices in these life events never again diminishes. Why? Because post healing, when people are faced with a similarly painful event, because they have learned to consciously witness this kind of shock, they can never be startled in this same way again.

In truth then, unblocking a wounding scene reveals an almost unlimited amount of previously unseen detail, including the many good choices which always exist within these scenes. More over, this idea; that the wound is "what you can't see" and "what you can't see" is the choices; is the basis of all healing work in Emergence Therapy.

How do we use this idea to heal? By asking people to divide their inner life into two piles, into what they can picture and what they can not picture. In doing so, we help people to clearly identify their BLocks. Then, if we can help people to picture what lies beyond these visual stuck points, they then have access to all their previously blocked, good choices.

That these two scripts; the wounding script and the healing script; never vary is why I sometimes call the theory underlying Emergence, "The Geometry of Personality." Why? Because like physical geometry, wherein a "square" is always a "square" no matter how you make one, the geometry of wounds and healing will always be the same no matter how you vary the circumstances.

To wit, "wounds" will always be visual "BLocks," and "healing" will always be visual "emergences." In other words, being wounded will always center on being startled into the inability to picture choices of the screen of the mind. And healing will always center on reclaiming this blocked ability picture choices. Especially, the "good" choices.

Knowing this; how being in the first level of the mind is connected to understanding wounds and healing; is what amazes me about how Freud abandoned hypnosis. He literally was looking in exactly the right place. Which brings me back to the point at hand, which is what living in a one level mind is like.

In essence, it is like being constantly in a state of openness to learning, whether this learning involves discovering the wonder in life, as in Madame Curie's "Eureka," or the wounded learning of Janet's automatism's; as in life's "scripted responses."

Understanding this level of the mind, the level in which babies live for their first two years of life, explains much about how we begin life. We begin by spending almost two full years in a constant state of "meditative trance." Which is just another way to say we live entirely in the First Level of the Mind; "The Level of Consciousness."

Finally, please note, this is why we Emergence Practitioners sometimes refer to being in this layer of consciousness as being in "baby consciousness." It is literally the same state babies live in, at least for their first two years of life.

So what triggers the end of what has to be one of the most incredible states of mind we will ever be in? More important, what exactly causes the next layer of consciousness; the Layer of the "Subconscious"; to begin to develop?

To know, you need to understand the nature of what triggers this development.

What triggers it? The baby's desire to verbally label the objects in its world. Along with the loving reinforcement which usually accompanies this learning.

And when does this happen? Usually around age two.

Thus most babies, somewhere around the age of two, quickly learn they will receive much love and attention if they can correctly name an object; for instance, if they can pick up a ball and say, "ball?" And when the baby's parents, and everyone else around this baby, excitedly gurgle whenever he or she correctly names an object, the development of the baby's subconscious proceeds. With much encouragement and love in fact.

Of course, no one ever realizes this is what is going on and so, it is fortunate this development is normal and quite necessary.

What makes it fortunate?

To know, remember that babies (and all of us, in fact) can be psychologically injured only while in the Level of the Conscious. Thus, developing a Level of the Subconscious actually serves a very important purpose. It decreases the baby's vulnerability to injury and in fact, is the beginning of the first protective mechanism of the mind.

In other words, all babies, for about their first two years, are literally quite vulnerable to injury, as they spend most of their time in the Level of the Conscious. As time goes on, however, babies become increasingly more protected from injury, as they spend less and less time in the Level of the Conscious and more and more time in the Level of the Subconscious. Up to about age seven, that is, when an even more protective level develops. More on this later.

For now, let's take a look at what being in the Level of the Subconscious like.

 

What is Being in the Level of the Subconscious Like?

So what is being in the Level of the Subconscious like?

It is somewhat like witnessing things out of the corner of your eye, only sometimes you see whole images.

In a way, this is like being in a world of fleeting shadows, a world where images have form but little to no color.

This, in fact, is where male babies feel most comfortable. Why? Because male babies, at birth, and for the rest of their lives, have more rods than cones in their eyes. This biases their visual preferences toward "forms" more than "colors," and especially toward forms that move.

Conversely, female babies, at birth, have more cones than rods. Thus, their visual bias is toward "colors" rather than "forms," and especially toward things that sit still.

What does all this mean?

It means that baby girls, right from the moment of birth, are biased toward learning about the nature of consciousness. Why? Because the Level of the Conscious contains the most vivid colors and the most steady images.

Conversely, baby boys, right from the moment of birth, are biased toward learning about the nature of the subconscious. Why? Because the Level of the Subconscious contains the most vivid forms; Jung's "shadow world," if you will, a world of vaguely visible, moving shadows.

More over, these two biases remain intact for life. Why? For one thing, because males will always have more rods than cones, while females will always have more cones than rods. This, in fact, is one the main points in a new book on gender, Dr. Leonard Sax's book, "Why Gender Matters." In this book, Dr. Leonard posits some very interesting ideas as to the true nature of why girls seem to adapt to being in school more easily than boys. And how this bias plays out over peoples' lifetimes.

Now for those more educated in Jungian theory, please excuse my gross over simplification. I realize there is much more to the "albedo" of Jung's shadow world than literal shadows. Even so, I would now posit, there is much more to the literal visual nature of this connection than anyone has ever realized.

Whatever the case, my point here has been to try to offer you a way to imagine being in the Level of the Subconscious. Thus, imagining a shadow world, a world of vague, moving images, is very much the essence of this experience.

Perhaps this is why boys seem to be drawn more to seeing what is in the shadows. And more afraid that something is lurking there.

What happens next in the development of the mind?

The discovery of "historical time."

And what is "historical time?"

Let's look.

the Third Level: the Level of the "Unconscious"

So what is being in the third level of the mind like? Here again the best way to understand this level of the mind is to understand what provokes it into being. So what triggers the development of the third level of our consciousness, the Level of the Unconscious? To see, let's take a brief look at what is arguably one of the most important things to ever develop in our minds; our awareness of "historical time."

What is "historical time?"

It is the state of mind children first experience at or around age seven.

Why at age seven?

Because this is the age at which children are usually able to be taught to tell time; "watch" and "clock" time, if you will.

What makes this ability so important though?

The fact that sensing the passage of time is what allows children (around the age of seven) to begin to see causality in their lives. Said in other words, realizing that time passes reveals to children that there are often patterns in the underlying sequence of their life events. Then, in learning to see these sequences of events as what has occurred over time, children begin to make connections between their successes and their happiness. And between their suffering and their mistakes.

Translation. Children begin to "learn from their mistakes" only after learning to place their experiences into a historical sequence.

But don't children "learn" from associations to pain and pleasure?

Yes. But all scripted responses are wounded learning, and for the most part, this is what behavioral therapies ignore. They ignore the idea that healthy learning always involves the conscious experience of making healthy choices and not just the doing of healthy choices.

So am I saying the conscious experience of making healthy choices comes into being just because children learn to tell "watch time?"

Yes, I am saying this. Although few people, parents included, ever realize how significant learning to tell time is. Which is why most parents waste so much time trying to teach their pre age seven children how to learn from their mistakes.

Pre age seven children can not learn from their mistakes, at least not in the adult sense of the word "learning." Why not? Because until children can place their life events on a historical continuum, they can not consciously see how these life events connect. Until they can, children simply live their lives in what people who meditate call, "now" moments. Which is just another way to say, these children are conscious of only one moment in time at a time.

So what do children learn from their mistakes before age seven?

At first, they learn nothing. They simply gather visual data. Little movies, if you will.

Then, at about age two, they begin to be able to identify the pain of an event as a separate element in the event, whenever they recall this event.

In other words, they begin to be able to identify the pain in painful pictures.

Finally, at about age seven, children begin to see the pain present in these events as being historically separate from parts of these events. How so? They begin to realize that the pain in these pictures has been preceded by something not necessarily painful, some action or inaction which appears to be the logical cause of this later occurring pain.

In essence, what children begin to believe, at or around age seven, is that the pain in life results from what happened before the pain, in essence, that there is a causative sequence within all painful events.

This belief then pushes children into a life long habit of examining the events themselves from a distance, in an effort to understand these events and in doing so, make better choices, or at least, avoid re experiencing the pain.

Unfortunately, this habit of reviewing life from a distance decreases children's psychological experience of these events, until at last, they fall into what is for most humans, a life long obsession; the life long obsession with using "why logic" to manage pain.

In truth, the pain in these events is never separate from these events. Nor is it the sequence of events which causes this pain. Rather, it is the experience of being startled while in the state of "baby consciousness" which causes the pain in these events. More over, to see this as true for yourself, you have but to consider this idea.

If the part of the event which you see as the cause of an injury does not injure most people who experience it, how then can this event be the logical cause of your injury?

In other words, if the events we claim are the cause of our injuries were actually the cause of our injuries, then why do the majority of people who experience these situations emerge unscathed?

The answer? Because it is never the event itself which causes the injury. It is only our experience of being startled during the event which injures us.

As for how this third level of the mind comes into being, unconsciousness is simply another way to describe the state wherein we relive our injuries. In visual darkness. And personal uncertainty.

One more point before moving on. This point is that without believing in the illusion of causality, we could never justify blaming anyone or anything. Ever. Why? Because if the sequence of the event did not cause the pain, and if our state of mind and a randomly occurring event are the actual cause of our pain, then our injuries happen by chance. Not choice. More over, while attempting to learn to see the underlying patterns in life is healthy, believing it is our mistakes that injure us is simply a flaw in the way we naturally see our world.

So where does this flaw come from?

It comes from the simple fact that we can not visualize what is in the Level of the Unconscious.

And what is in there?

The true nature of all of our injuries, from babyhood through the end of life.

Are you beginning to understand what makes this metaphor for consciousness so important?

 

the First Developmental Stage of Consciousness
Layers 10 through 7 and the "Conscious" Level

So how does all this relate to how human personality develops?

Remember, what we have been discussing so far has focused entirely on how the Three Levels of Consciousness develop. Which is just a pragmatic way to describe how the container which stores our life experiences emerges. No surprise then that Emergence's developmental theory of personality; The Layers of Aloneness; emerges in direct proportion to how the three levels of consciousness develop.

To get an idea of what I mean, take a look at the two diagrams I have placed above. The upper one represents our theory of personality, the Layers of Aloneness. The lower one shows how this personality theory integrates with our theory of the mind.

Now if you look at the left-most third of this lower drawing, what you'll see is a section titled, the "Age of the Conscious." And if you look closer, what you'll also see is the state of consciousness in which babies live from birth to about age two; the level of the mind we began this article with; the "Level of the Conscious." Finally, if you now look at the yellow bars which I've placed to the left of this section of the drawing, what you'll see are the four innermost, personality layers from the Layers of Aloneness.

So what is this section of the lower drawing showing us?

It is showing us the order in which these four Layers of Personality develop. As well as telling us which Personality Layers babies arrive with at birth.

In addition, we can also see the order and importance these four Personality Layers first take.

To see this, notice how the inner most layer of our personalities; Layer 10, the Layer of the "Divine Connections," is positioned at the very top of the heap as the highest level of consciousness.

Next comes Layer 9, the Layer of "Personal Connections," Wherein we are a bit less conscious.

Then comes Layer 8, the "Layer of Aloneness," which is the layer we least experience after age two. Or at any other age. Why? Because it is the most painful layer.

Finally, at the very bottom of this pile comes Layer 7, the "Layer of Need," which is the pure reaction to our worst pain; the pain of becoming disconnected from love. Here is where our needs live, the things which we believe will relieve our aloneness.

 

What Do These Layers of Personality Signify?

So what do these Layers of Personality signify?

Realize that the number of layers present here (four) represents the degree to which the structure of a person's personality has emerged. Also know that the size and position these layers take represents how prominent each layer is at this point in a person's life.

Thus, within this first age, the Age of Consciousness, the most developed layer in babies is Layer 10, the Layer of the "Divine Us." Looking at how babies experience this then, it means they babies spend most of their time consciously connected to the divine.

Can you picture this?

Of course, knowing what this "divine" state is like is a matter of some difficulty for us adults. More over, even the greatest mystics have had difficulty putting this experience into words.

Knowing this state exists, however, is a step toward understanding what it is like. And connecting our observations of babies to what we imagine this state to be can add much depth to what we understand about ourselves and our world.

Next in importance comes Layer 9; the Layer of "Personal Us." So what is being in this layer like?

Here again, in order to know, we must use our imaginations. Fortunately, with this layer, we also have a class of experiences which adults normally experience to guide our search.

What class of experiences?

Falling in love. Thus, we can get a good idea of what being in this layer is like by remembering what it is like to fall in love.

Please know, when I say "falling in love," I mean with a person, not with a non person. In fact, you could expand on this idea and know much more about Layer 10 if you were to realize that falling in love with something other than a person, such as falling in love with The Grand Canyon, is a good way to know what it is like to be in Layer 10.

Remember, too, that according to the theory of the Layers of Aloneness, Layer 9 began in utero.

Said in other words, the essence of the experience of being in Layer 9 is the experience of how we felt before we were born. Connected to a person. Really connected.

How important was this experience? To see, consider this. This connection seems to have been so profound that most of us make it both our life's goal to get again and our life's goal to avoid ever getting again. What am I saying?

It seems the psychological pain of separating in childbirth is so great that we each get programmed with what I call, our "original wound." This wound, in fact, is our first experience of the wounding sequence; [1] hyperawareness, [2] being startled, [3] and going into shock. This sequence then becomes the script of all future wounds, regardless of the nature of the events and or the outcomes.

So what makes us hyperaware during childbirth?

Moving down the birth canal, of course.

And what startles us?

Our first experience of total aloneness; the blinding light of the still point moment, the instant which immediately follows leaving the birth canal.

And the shocking part of the event?

The extreme neediness which underlies our first cry; the shocking realization that we and our mothers are actually two separate people, and not just one person. In essence, we realize we have ceased to happily-ever-after with our mothers. And that we have been thrown out of paradise.

Here then, is the event which programs us to be vulnerable to injury for the rest of our lives; the sequence of the birth moment. And because this moment is the very first painful event wherein we experience pain alone and separately; by ourselves; we, as babies, arrive with no wounds to speak of, other than this birth wound. Afterwards, we then quickly return to what very much resembles our pre birth state; being consciously connected to our mothers.

This, then, is the first stage in the development of the mind. In this stage, babies live in a constant state of consciousness and only occasionally cycle through reliving the birth sequence, whenever they get startled. More over, because they have yet to develop a sense of either logic or historical time, as babies, we literally have no way to distance ourselves from the pain of our injuries. Which means, we experience these injures very deeply. And very completely.

More over, this is also what makes the scope of these early injuries so great. With so little in the way of defenses, they literally affect our whole personalities up to this point. And everything which develops afterwards.

 

Why Number The Layers of Personality Backwards?

Before going on to the second stage in the development of the mind, some may be wondering why we have numbered the Layers of Personality from ten down, rather than from one up.

Our reason?

These numbers indicate the visual intensity of the things we experience on the screen of our minds. Thus, the things we experience in Layer 1, we visualize at a very dim intensity. Which is just another way to say, we experience these things unconsciously.

In Layer 2 then, this visual intensity increases a bit, but is still so dim as to make us experience these things, for the most part, unconsciously as well.

These increases in visual intensity continue then, as these Layers increase in number all the way up to Layer 10, wherein we experience very intense visions on the screen of our minds. No surprise these intense visions, which some people refer to as spiritual experiences, last for the rest of our lives.

Are you wondering if you yourself have had any of these kinds of visions?

You have. In fact, at one time, you experienced these kinds of visions almost constantly. When? During the first two years of your life.

No wonder these years affect us so much.

Unfortunately, because, by adulthood, we have so little access to Layer 10 (and to this state of consciousness), we very rarely if ever access these memories. Except, of course, when we experience this state again, during things like a meditation or during hypnosis.

Or during major life events, such as witnessing the birth of a child.

Or during the kinds of spiritual experiences which change our whole lives, the experiences we call, "emergences."

What happens next in our development then?

In a way, we begin to forget this terribly painful loss of connectedness. How? As we gradually become more and more visually blocked, we begin to lose our ability to feel pain. Along with our overall ability to feel life as well.

Fortunately, we, for the most part, have no memory of either of these losses. They lie hidden in the Level of the Subconscious.

What is not hidden, however, is the source of the shadow side of our personalities, the Layers 6 and 5 of our Personalities; Blocks and Symptoms.

 

the Second Developmental Stage of Consciousness
Layers 6 & 5 and the "SubConscious" Level

Let's talk about symptoms first.

All babies develop symptoms as they grow older and at first, we have no way to know the nature of these symptoms, other than to guess. After all, babies do not speak words. Thus, they can not direct us to what they see as the source of their suffering. At least for about the first two years of their lives.

In the onset of the third year of life though, babies begin to offer at least some vague words to describe their pain, a process which gets more reinforced and refined each time the baby's parents ask them, "what's wrong."

Now consider for a moment what these requests provoke in them. In two year old babies, that is.

Two years olds have no sense that time exists, other than as the present moment. Translation. They live life one moment at a time and so, can not sense that time unfolds, not even a little.

This means that because the "cause" of something is assumed to precede the "effect," babies can not logically associate causal events with their outcomes, as they can not understand how time unfolds.

What they can do though is associate feelings with experiences. In effect, these feelings become an integral part of these life experiences. This means, while babies can not make decisions based on logical time, they can use the emotional components of their life events to differentiate between things that feel good and things that don't.

In a sense then, babies do make decisions, albeit not based on any logic. These decisions are almost entirely based on the baby's sense of "good" and "bad" feelings. No surprise this is the age at which babies begin to see themselves as being good or bad. How? They associate these good or bad feelings with the pictures they have of themselves.

In a way then, babies become the "good" or "bad" feelings, rather than the cause of the good or bad feelings.

What is profoundly important to realize is that it is at this age, the Age of the Subconscious, in which all moral judgments develop. More over, once these feelings become integrated with these scenes, people have a very hard time seeing their feelings as being separate from their moral judgments.

Of course, parents contribute to this mistake as well, every time they encourage children to be good, not bad.

Then again, since all parents themselves go through this stage of development, most parents are just as blind as their children to this error. Most times, even more blind.

Said in other words, in this stage of development, babies make such strong associations between their experiences and their feelings that they lose their ability to see these two things as separate. Then, because babies experience these life experiences and the feelings which get associated to them as one and the same, they then spend the next five years of their lives mostly guessing at what is right and what is wrong. Why? Because parents demand this from babies in increasing amounts throughout the rest of their childhoods.

Demands aside, because babies have yet to develop the skill to see how life unfolds in time, what they do in no way resembles cause and effect decisions, even when they feel very strong feelings. Thus, when parents demand children explain their behavior, they are wasting their time. And hurting their children. Why? Because these unreasonable demands reinforce in babies that they should at least be able to fabricate a logical explanation. Or more likely, memorize what their parents see as reasonable explanations. Which is why most talk therapies seek to help people to have these explanations. Fabricated or not. These therapists are simply acting as surrogate parents to Age of Subconsciousness children.

Of course, at around age seven, normal children learn to tell time. When this happens then, children begin to have the skill to create their own sense of "why things happen," using "why logic." Before this time though, whenever babies relive injury, they relive it as if the event never ended. And during this age; during the Age of the Subconscious; babies relive injury a little less painfully, as they relive injury in this half conscious state.

This means these babies feel more pained by their injuries than older kids.

It also means they have plenty of reasons to want to use "why logic" to escape life.

the Third Developmental Stage of Consciousness
Layers 4 through 1 and the "Unconscious" Level

 

What comes next? The final four layers of personality develop. Along with the final level of the mind; the Level of the Unconscious.

So what is this like? The easiest way to grasp this is to first focus on the idea that these four personality layers (4 - 1) are the only layers in which blame takes place. Why? Because our sense of historical time originates here. Thus, our sense of cause and effect begins here.

No coincidence, these four layers, wherein we blame others and ourselves, are also the four layers which cumulatively make up the level of the mind we call, the "unconscious." Which is simply yet another word for the state wherein we adults relive all our injuries.

Now think about the ideas which I've told you about so far.

[1] All blame exists in Personality Layers 4 - 1, because our sense of historical time originates here, and all blame is based on the idea of cause and effect which the experience of historical time generates.

[2] Personality Layers 4 - 1 exist entirely in the Level of the Unconscious, and this phrase refers to a state of the mind.

[3] More over, this state; "unconsciousness"; is the state of mind wherein we relive all our injuries.

[4] This makes reliving injury and blaming simply two faces of the same experience. In fact, "blame" is simply a way to refer to the logically injured way we respond to life in these visually blocked situations.

[5] Which, said in still other words, is just another way to refer to what we are doing when we use "why logic." Thus, "why logic" is blame.

So what does all this mean? Simply this. There are four layers of human personality contained in the level of the mind called, the "unconscious." More over, all four layers are simply the different faces of how we try to avoid the pain of our injuries. With blame. And "why logic."

So what prevents us from seeing this error? And what is being in the Level of the Unconscious like?

To see, we'll need to take a look at a simple math problem. A very simple math problem, in fact. At least, on the surface, anyway. It turns out though, this problem is not quite as simple as it first seems.

Unconsciousness as the "Missing Number"

To see what being in the state of unconsciousness is like, consider this.

Consider what it would be like to be asked to add up the following math problem, a problem wherein you must add up five numbers but where only four of these numbers are clearly visible.

As you can see, I've actually written out a problem like this in the drawing above.

Now if I were to ask you to add up these numbers, would you be able to come up with a real answer?

Of course not. Why not? Because you can not read the last number.

Ironically, when I ask people what the answer to this problem is, most people actually try to add up this column of numbers.

More over, pretty much everyone offers me some sort of an answer.

To me, this is odd, to say the least. How can anyone offer me an answer, when logically, there can be no answer, at least without knowing the last number.

What makes this happen? Simply this. As I've already mentioned, human nature abhors a vacuum, even when this vacuum is a mental vacuum. The result? People make up an answer.

But what is the real answer then?

Of course, the real answer is unknowable. Why? It is visually blocked.

In other words, you can't possibly offer a real answer to this math problem unless and until you can see the missing number. Until then, there simply is no way to know the real answer.

Do you feel an urge to know the "real answer?" Know we feel these same urges whenever trauma injures our ability to picture something. Including that we make up the missing numbers.

Thus, while we all can see, logically at least, that the answer is unknowable, we also have programmed into us the need to solve this problem in spite of this logical blindness. Against all logic then, we ignore that some of the information is visually missing and proceed to try to solve our life problems anyway, by logically filling in the blank spots in these painful scenes. With what?" With logical assumptions, things our minds make up to explain what is missing. Which is what I have been calling, "why logic."

Unfortunately, the essence of our "why logic" is always to blame someone. Thus, no matter how carefully we assess these situations, our assumptions always lead us to find fault with someone. Or something. Which means what exactly?

Let me try to explain with a story.

 

The Man Who Was Afraid of People

 

Years ago, I had a man ask me for help with "social phobia." Now for those who are unfamiliar with this condition, it basically means the person is incapable of going out into the world of people without suffering serious anxiety and panic.

What did I do?

I began by asking this man to come up with three scenes in which he could picture himself panicking in and around people. In each case, he experienced hyperawareness. Then he got startled. Then he went into shock.

The result?

In each case, was unable to picture anything beyond the point at which he had been startled.

So what did I do?

At first, the man could neither see nor imagine that anything good had happened in these scenes. He simply felt people had laughed at him until he went into shock. And then he suffered. And nothing more.

In all three cases though, when I helped him to see what had happened after the startle point, in all three cases, he pictured kindness on the faces of at least some of the people present, this with no prompting whatsoever from me.

Obviously, having never pictured this kindness before, he had repeatedly relived these experiences, and every single similar life experience, as if the outcome was always the same; painful humiliations wherein he was ridiculed and felt alone.

What I'm saying is, before this man recovered his ability to visually see past his "stuck point," he kept fabricating something to fill in these missing spaces. More over, since the last thing he was sure of was that he suffered terribly, he filled in these missing spaces with terribly painful assumptions. None of which were true. And all of which blamed someone.

We all do this. We "fill in the blanks" with painful material. Why? As I've said, this is simply the way we are wired.

More important though, whenever we fill in the blanks, we guesstimate the tone of these missing experiences. How? By using the last things we felt to interpolate the imagined material. Translation. We never fill in the blank spots with good stuff. Why? Because we project the terrible pain of the startling moment onto the whole rest of the scene. Then, because we do, we blame someone, even if we keep who we blame to ourselves.

Aren't there times, though, when these scenes do end painfully?

Well, this depends on which moment you pick to represent the end of the scene. For instance, if you end the math problem at the last visible number; in our case, at the number six; then you will indeed get a real answer.

Unfortunately, this answer will be wrong. Every time. Why? Because you ended the problem too early.

Now think about this further and imagine that all your grades in school depended on guessing a missing number. How would you do? And how about if all your relationships depended on your guessing what this number was. How would this be? And what about if your very happiness depended on getting these answers right? Every time? How would this be?

The answer is, in truth, you would be stuck in your unhappiness and never know why. And in the case of the man with social phobia then, this is exactly what he had been doing. He had repeatedly added up the details of his painful story, over and over and over. Then, each time, because he kept coming up with a painfully wrong answer, he would suffer yet again.

In effect, by reliving these wrong answers, his suffering never ended. In truth though, it was these painfully wrong answers (and not the event itself) which had actually been preventing his suffering from ending.

And once he was able to see beyond the startle point and see what had been visually missing?

Once he could see the good he had been missing in all three stories; that in the moment just past the startle point that there were some kind faces looking back at him; he began to look deeper into his life long obsession with avoiding other people. He literally began to see other possibilities. Including choices which held possibilities for happiness.

As for how the four least reality based layers of personality relate to the Level of the Unconscious (the least connected state of mind humans can be in), it's obvious. From age seven on, we spend most of our lives in this state of mind. Doing what? Creating made up answers for every pain we experience. For ourselves. And for everyone else.

Admittedly, many of these answers are quite "logical," which is why they appear to be so true at times. And since our teachers and leaders are just as human as we are, many times, it's our teachers and leaders who teach us the most logical but least real answers.

Whatever the case, no answer can ignore part of a problem and be logical, let alone true. And when it comes to managing our lives, this holds even more true.

 

So What's the Point; What Does This System Tell Us?
More Important, What Can We Do With It?

Some may be wondering why we've constructed such an obviously complex system to represent human consciousness. In truth, we didn't. Whomever created us, created this system. We've simply discovered a few of the underlying patterns hidden within this system. And named these few patterns with words we hope will make them discernable. And useful.

On what is all this theory based though? To be honest, offering you empirical data at this point would be quite premature. Why? Because in order for you to grasp the significance of such data, you would have to have internalized at least the basics of this system.

But haven't I just given you the basics of this system?

Actually, no, I haven't. In fact, what I've just given you is more akin to opening a box of crayons and simply naming the colors, with a few passing comments about how the colors have been organized.

In other words, being able to see the colors of personality and knowing how the human mind processes these colors are two very different things, at least as far as understanding how different the levels of complexity are between these two things.

(from: theemergencesite.com)