I would like to preface this post in particular by reminding the reader that Foolhero is a blog primarily for thoughts and hypotheses, and less so for conclusions.
The conscious or ego speaks using words.
The unconscious speaks using mental or physiological reactions. The midconscious speaks to us in images and is the mediator between unconscious and conscious. The conscious is rational, yang, the unconscious is hectic, yin – and the midconscious is the relationship between these two. Dreams, visions, images that come to us, thoughtful gut feelings – these are not examples of chaos – they are rationalizations of it. This is the midconscious – which is the process of transforming the invisible into the visible.
The unconscious picks up on cues that are invisible to us.
These cues cannot instantly be translated into rational thought or language. The mind compensates this by grouping cues from the unconscious into images or symbols, which appear to spring forth from an invisible source. These images appear to us during dreams and visions primarily, however also through visual thought or “gut-feeling” wisdom. The conscious perceives these images and attempts to rationalize them. This process is from “invisible to visible”, where unconscious is “invisible”, midconscious is “to”, and conscious is “visible”.
This idea stems from the shortcomings presented by the dyad of conscious and unconscious.
We are led to believe that things such as dreams or visions are simply aspects of the unconscious. However, this does not make sense. The unconscious is better understood as limited to all that is instinctually elusive or invisible to the conscious. Dreams and visions are not totally unconscious – they are the primary step in rationalizing it. The unconscious is the artist, the midconscious is the art piece, and the conscious is the observer. The unconscious is the writer, the midconscious is the written, and the conscious is that which reflects upon the writing.
In my vocabulary, the midconscious is the closest thing I can think of to the “soul”.
In this manner, I suspect that without the soul, without a spiritual appreciation of any sort, it becomes impossible to give any sort of credence to a midconscious – in other words, to rationalize the chaos in our lives. Perhaps spiritual connection is mighty for so many people because it is a necessary tool for acknowledging the presence of a midconscious. I suspect that spirituality in this context may be replaceable by simply having a truly deep and contemplated definition of the word “soul” – however, at least one of the two seem to be mandatory.
Do you disagree? Please consider letting me know why below.
Right click -> View in New Tab