Models of the Mind

There are many ways of trying to understand the human mind. In 1906 in The Devil’s Dictionary Ambrose Bierce described it as follows:

A mysterious form of matter secreted by the brain. Its chief activity consists in the endeavour to ascertain its own nature, the futility of the attempt being due to the fact that it has nothing but itself to know itself with. ~ Ambrose Bierce

As is often the case with satire, there is a lot of truth in this simple statement. In attempting to make sense of the human mind, the main tool that we have at our disposal is the human mind. It’s a bit of a conundrum, like asking whether a tongue can taste itself or a tooth bite itself? Having said that, many have proposed different models of the mind and there are several widely accepted ones that the psychological sciences have worked with and developed around.

Perhaps one of the most widely known and accepted ones would be Freud’s tripartite structure of the mind which was developed about a hundred years ago. In it he proposed that our minds work on three levels, the id, the ego and the superego. The id is the repository of our primitive drives, the need for self-preservation, food, shelter, the drive to procreate. Without us being consciously aware, it acts in our interests all the time, and would take any steps necessary to further our personal interests within any social setting. The superego might be likened to a more conscious higher moral voice, the conscience, the part of us that metaphorically taps us on the shoulder asking whether we are thinking, doing or saying the “right” thing according to the values within which we have lived or grown up. And balancing the two is the ego, that part that takes the middle ground, the morally and socially acceptable face that we must present in order to function within our groups, be they tribal, family, work or social.

Although no one has ever been able to objectively see or prove the presence of these parts, as a concept they have served us well and continue to inform much of the theory and practice to this day. In much the same way as cosmologists theorise about the unseen reaches of the universe, their theories work for the time being and time will tell whether they will need to be revised later. The human mind could also said to be a cosmos in reverse, it’s inner reaches as mysterious and unfathomable as the universe. Who knows whether today’s theories will work tomorrow, especially with other sciences such as biological and neuroscience fields working alongside the psychological.

Going back to Bierce’s satirical perspective, can we ever truly understand the mind even through the most gifted “mind-owners” like Freud? There are other models of mind which could potentially be of interest to practitioners, which come from a more transcendental source. In the Baha’i Writings it is suggested that the mind works on more of a duality principle than through a tripartite model:

In man there are two natures; his spiritual or higher nature and his material or lower nature. In one he approaches God, in the other he lives for the world alone. Signs of both these natures are to be found in men. In his material aspect he expresses untruth, cruelty and injustice; all these are the outcome of his lower nature. The attributes of his Divine nature are shown forth in love, mercy, kindness, truth and justice, one and all being expressions of his higher nature. ~ Baha'i Writings

This idea of duality has echoes in earlier religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism. Based on these are the more modern concepts of mindfulness which also focus on duality, the difference between being immersed in one’s egoic thoughts versus becoming the detached observer of one’s thoughts or actions, thereby connecting with the universal consciousness that some might call “God”, depending on their ideas and beliefs.

The suggestion of a higher aspect of human nature is also found in the works of other giants in the field of psychology, for example Maslow who spoke of the “peak experience”, or Jung’s process of individuation.

So perhaps we have a material, egoic self, and then somewhere or somehow related to that a higher self that somehow connects to the universal consciousness, or with “God”, depending on one’s belief. Whilst dwelling in the material self we can become trapped in cycles of negatives feelings such as greed, lust, envy, jealousy and anger, whilst in the higher self we transcend the material nature and move towards virtues of love, purity, kindness, patience and true joy.

That is not to suggest that Freud’s, or any other model, is “wrong” but merely that as mankind evolves perhaps our scientific knowledge can be enhanced by a more spiritually based insights from various sources.

Despite regular upheaval and discord it seems that overall Mankind is slowly evolving towards more global levels of co-existence. It might be that, as this process continues, we will work more widely with some of the many insights offered by more diverse sources of thought than the ones we have relied upon for so long.