Addressing Mental Plurality

Abstract

Strongly partitive accounts deviate radically from the common view of a single, unified knower or self within each 'person', proposing instead an account of multiple knowers. This view is justified by consideration of mental conflict, and objections, including the view that conflict does not require strong partitioning, that there exists a tension between 'persons' and 'parts', and the problem of homunculi, are found not to hold. However, the problems of proposing partitioning ad hoc and ad libitum are genuine concerns that any account of mental plurality must address. The realist account of cognition, proposing that cognition is a relation between subject and object terms existing independently of the cognitive relation, provides a conceptual basis for evaluating strongly partitive accounts. On this view, any account of knowers, either singular or plural, must be capable of specifying their intrinsic qualities. Pears's account is found to be problematic here since it fails to meet this logical requirement. Maze's account is found to satisfy this requirement, providing in-principle means of characterizing the multiple knowers.

On Dreams and Motivation: Comparison of Freud’s and Hobson’s Views

“…Freud is invoking a strongly partitive account of mind by proposing multiple knowers within the personality. Strong partitioning, in itself, is not necessarily a fatal objection (see Boag, 2005), but since Freud’s censor is characterized solely by its effects, Freud appears to be engaging in an instance of reification (see Boag, 2005, 2012). Furthermore, the functional roles attributed to the censor are problematic.…”

Ego, drives, and the dynamics of internal objects

“…While not a common standpoint, this view has nevertheless been taken up by others to account for the dynamics of mental life (e.g., Petocz, 1999; Boag, 2005, 2012; Newbery, 2011) and although we can generally refer to the “organism” as that which knows, the fact of psychological conflict – a foundation of psychoanalytic theory – forces upon us the view of there being multiple systems, each motivated and cognising, coming into conflict (a position not dissimilar to Plato’s observation that human life reflects “struggles of factions in a State” – Plato, 1928; 440b, p. 170). As Petocz (1999) writes, “in order to accommodate the facts of mental conflict, of a conflict of interests within a single mind, there must be a plurality of drives – at least two” (p. 221; cf.…”

“…As Petocz (1999) writes, “in order to accommodate the facts of mental conflict, of a conflict of interests within a single mind, there must be a plurality of drives – at least two” (p. 221; cf. Maze, 1983; Boag, 2005, 2007, 2012; McIlwain, 2007). That is, it is literally possible to be in “two minds” about something since, unlike the indivisible and immaterial Cartesian ego, any experience of “self” belies what is in fact a multiplicity of knowing systems.…”

“…Accordingly, what the drives know in relation to themselves is the “person’s” desires, beliefs, and actions (a shared pool of beliefs): The apparent unity of the ego follows from a drive neither knowing itself directly (nor the other drives) and instead only knowing the organism generally and its activities via a singular perceptual apparatus of which each drive partakes in. As I elsewhere note (Boag, 2005), “[t]he resulting belief of a unified self is as prima facie plausible as the belief that the sun revolves around the earth” (p. 753). Our social interactions further reinforce developing a coherent sense of self since we appear as a single organism to others and are treated as such accordingly.…”

“…Furthermore, as dynamic agents internal objects are the subjects that do the phantasying: “ phantasying is the product of internal objects ( i.e., internal objects are the thinkers doing the unconscious thinking) ” (Ogden, 2011, p. 139, his italics). On the other hand, if, as Maze (1993) believes, internal objects are primarily beliefs, phantasies, and desires, then such internal objects cannot exists as autonomous structures simply because beliefs, phantasies, and desires are activities and so cannot be structures engaging in those same activities (see also Boag, 2005). …”