Accessibility of the subliminal mind: Transcendence vs. immanence

Continental Philosophy Review 38 (3-4):143-164 (2005)
  Copy   BIBTEX


It has long been taken for granted in modern psychology that access to the unconscious is indirectly gained through the interpretation of a trained psychoanalyst, evident in theories of Freud, Jung and others. However, my essay problematizes this very indirectness of access by bringing in a Yogācāra Buddhist formulation of the subliminal mind that offers a direct access. By probing into the philosophical significance of the subliminal mind along the bias of its access, I will argue that the different views of the subliminal consciousness correspond to different models of “transcendence” and “immanence.” We will see that the involvement of the transcendence principle in Freud’s and Jung’s conceptualizations of the unconscious results in the denial of direct access to the unconscious; only the Buddhist immanence-based formulation provides direct access. This East-West comparative approach is an attempt to examine how different models of reasoning, vis-à-vis transcendence and immanence, can lead to drastically different theories as well as the practices they instruct.



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 76,168

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Availability, accessibility, and subliminal perception.John F. Kihlstrom - 2004 - Consciousness and Cognition 13 (1):92-100.


Added to PP

44 (#267,375)

6 months
1 (#448,551)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Tao Jiang
Rutgers University - New Brunswick

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

The Interpretation of Dreams.Sigmund Freud & A. A. Brill - 1900 - Journal of Philosophy, Psychology and Scientific Methods 10 (20):551-555.
Thinking through Confucius.David L. Hall & Roger T. Ames - 1987 - Philosophy East and West 41 (2):241-254.

Add more references