From the author: Throughout the text of the “unconscious”, Freud tries to answer the question of the transfer from the unconscious to consciousness, essentially about the analytical process: about what happens during awareness - a new “record” appears “(while maintaining the “old”?) or does the functional “state” of the repressed material in the same locality change (“rewriting”)? In his work “The Unconscious” S. Freud writes that the drive itself cannot in principle be conscious. Only an idea associated with one or another attraction can become accessible to consciousness. In practice, awareness is something that occurs almost only in psychoanalysis (and even then, not in every school of psychoanalysis), because the concept of repression and the concept of the unconscious do not occur in that very “Freudian” sense in any other theory. Let us explain - ALL drives are shameful, scandalous and disgusting, and the unconscious is “another scene”, as well as the very fact of the IRREVOCABLE splitting of the subject. Everything else is, so to speak, from the evil one. Is awareness a necessary condition for psychoanalysis? No. Is awareness something that elevates the subject, making him wiser, more harmonious, calmer? No. Maybe awareness leads to “personal growth” or beautiful abs? It is quite possible, but this is not at all the awareness we are talking about. There is a legion of practices, New Age (and not so New Age) that do these wonderful things, but it all has nothing to do with this topic. It should also be noted that awareness is not the most common, and more correctly, the rarest way to overcome repression. There are several “workaround” and completely “natural” ways to overcome repression, or rather not overcome, but temporarily reduce. Wit is a very clear way to defuse accumulated tension without losing face. Markers such as “witty” and “funny” make it possible to say things that would seem terrible, disgusting, and shameful to the subject if they were said seriously. To what extent consciousness is involved here - that is, to what extent repression is overcome in these situations - is a complex question. Freud, in his work "Wit and Its Relation to the Unconscious" shows the dependence of the sense of humor on the "rigidity" of the superego. Gentle humor is characteristic of people with a relatively liberal superego, sarcasm is characteristic of a more rigid one, and there may be an almost complete absence of humor in people with a super-hard superego. Another very important workaround is denial. We will stop there and try to analyze it in more detail. For the unconscious there is no negation, since the unconscious itself is a negation (repressed). In relation to the unconscious, one can say, not entirely jokingly, that “the negation of a negation is an affirmation.” To put it simply, in order to deny something, the idea of ​​this “something” must arise in its entirety, and only then can the label “not” be attached to this idea. And without an affective load, such an idea cannot arise. There are a lot of examples of this, including the statement of inexperienced analysands (and not only analysands) that “I believe that I have everything you want, except homosexuality,” or “I don’t understand how it’s possible to feel attracted to one’s own parents." Denial allows the repressed thought to gain access to consciousness, to deceive the vigilance of censorship. With the help of denial, repression is conditionally removed, which in the language of drives can look like a kind of fantasy (and there are no others) and a relatively safe channel for satisfying drives for censorship. So What happens when the unconscious becomes conscious? Freud writes that if the first topical model is accepted, very definite doubts should arise. If a certain idea, subjected to repression, reaches consciousness, is it worth thinking that in this case a new one is taking place?fixation of a representation, and at the same time the primary record is preserved, or does the same unconscious material undergo certain changes that now make it conscious? Which model will describe this process better - a topical model, which consists in allowing a new fixation of the representation, using a new locality, or a functional model, which is based on the editing of the old “record”, in the same “place”? It should be remembered that in the process of repression the idea is separated from its affect. And, from this point of view, to realize means to return to the representation its affect. Based on this, then, as Freud notes, in this case the functional hypothesis turns out to be more correct. Throughout the text of the “unconscious”, Freud tries to answer the question about the transfer from the unconscious to consciousness, essentially about the analytical process: about what occurs upon awareness - does a new “record” appear (while maintaining the “old” one?) or does the functional “state” of the repressed material in the same locality change (“rewrite”)? At the end of the text, Freud asks the question of the correctness of such a formulation of the question about the difference between unconscious and conscious ideas, and he finds the difference between them in another way, in which the speech of people with schizophrenia helps him. “Only the analysis of the diseases that we call narcissistic psychoneuroses promises us to open the necessary points of view, thanks to which the mysterious Ubw will become more familiar to us, as if easily tangible.” In contrast to transference neuroses, with narcissistic psychoneuroses there is a withdrawal of libido from the object, which then does not seek itself a new object, but is directed towards one’s own “I,” which is the essence of narcissism.” As for the relationship between both systems, it struck all observers that in schizophrenia a lot of things are expressed quite consciously that in transference neuroses should have been revealed in the unconscious with the help of psychoanalysis."In schizophrenia, very specific changes in speech are observed, consisting in the fact that words undergo primary processes, the objective and verbal meanings of words lose connection with each other, as a result of which phenomena such as paralogy, slippage, and symbolism are observed , neologisms, polysemanticism, which leads to incomprehensible, pretentious and sometimes broken speech. Subject and verbal associations move freely, gaining independence from each other, which allows us to talk about dissociation characteristic of schizophrenia. For example, the patient may say that she became “invisible” (written in quotation marks, although in this particular case the quotation marks are inappropriate) for her father, since the enemies made it so that he saw a robot clone instead of her. By analogy with Freud’s assumptions, one might think that the hysterical woman in this case would acquire conversion paralysis (she would become an insensitive and passive “robot”) or amaurosis (she would become blind instead of her father). Or a patient speaking with “Ay mama” - the “Moon Mother” whose projection she sees when she looks at the moon (Ay), which translated from Azerbaijani means almost the same as in Russian “Ay mama!” or “Oh mom!” This patient lost her mother in early childhood and was raised by her father and stepmother. Freud points out that what schizophrenics say in connection with their incomprehensible speech is equivalent to analysis, since it “contains the equivalent of this speech in generally understandable terms; at the same time, its words explain the meaning and origin of schizophrenic word formation.” The primary process dominates the speech of patients with schizophrenia: thanks to its mechanisms, word associations completely transfer their active energies along the chain to the next representation in the associative series, and “the process can go so far that a single word can replace a whole chain of thoughts.” The speech of a schizophrenic is in a sense not speech, since it is not the subject who speaks here, but the language itself speaks through him. The primary process in schizophrenia thus carries out a replacement of representation not based on».