- Sigmund Freud, Austrian neurologist and founder of psychoanalysis 1856 – 1939
Of so many people leaving such an large impression on the field of psychology as we know it today, Freud is remaining an perennial crowd favorite throughout an number of years. The reason he is so popular, his many theories of psycho-investigation, his psychoanalytic method of laying someone back in an chair in order to converse with them about their mental health, and possibly contributing the biggest of little lies that have ever been known as knowledge. Yet in doing so, revealing somehow about what people will believe. He called it—and not to mention the Freudian Slip, which was an eternal call—he called the fact that people are willing to believe something and to what extent. Possibly in an sophisticated manner investigating the whole subjectivity and objectivity of it. And yet even at this point he could not accept his own ego as itself an kind of archetype which conformed to Jung's psychological theories of the archetypes.
 |
| Freud's Famous psychoanalytic couch |
Of so many people leaving such an large impression upon the field of psychology, we know these are the reasons why we agree Freud had such an big influence. And that our favorite turned out to be either the layback method or the Freudian slip or some of the other writings & ideas he produced.
He flew the argument so high on that what he called it; he flew it even further so that it became an bluff and, pushing it to its limits, became an silly made-up story (you probably know which one: the Oedipal or Electra Complex) that some people would actually believe and, in doing so, proved the hypothesis of their own argument.
It was the most bullshit that had ever been flown.
It was the most bullshit that had ever been believed by any group of people. An White man. From Western Philosophy.
And Freud was the caregiver, the producer of this bullshit. As kind of an deep psychological inquiry and call: that it would be believed even though it didn't say something about psychology; which itself, said something about psychology.
And that's the heavy impression Freud left upon our psychology.
An type of knowledge that knew more than you, was implied in its preliminary starting artifact. Once you knew it, it already knew you; and you were subject to it like everyone is subject to psychology. And since he knew more about it than you do, you are probably more at the influence of him than he is of you. He influences you more, even though he has died, than you influence him (or his memory) because he made such an high-ranging call. It grows and sprouts new legs.
Which was absurdist in its definition. But who wouldn't follow an absurdist call in politics?
I much more prefer maybe Jung's theory of archetypes than Freud's, which can't even point out that the Ego is one of them and leaves him in an sort of vacuum.
But then again, neither did Jung's.
At least all of his archetypes (of what he was saying) had an ego whether he said it to be.
I think this is what was so important about his definition of archetypes; every single one of them had their own ego. That was what was substantial about archetypes, truly. Each one of them revealed and represented something about Ego because each one of them could have one.
I have found one bit of advice that appeals to me about dealing with the Freudian Slip: play with it. Even if you can play psychologically with others about their own Freudian Slips, like you had expected them to happen at an certain point maybe. You can find playfully your own potential for Freudian Slips, which you may or may not be self-aware or self-conscious of.
If Freud's theory of psychoanalysis is really just an void without ego, then everything that happens in there is as though within an play theatre. And the observance of the projected psychological image of the present play is not an activity of the ego. Whose ego is it then? Except one's own. And if one always has one's own type of archetype; then what are the other archetypes for?
But if one always has one's own ego; one already has all of the other types of archetypes.
Not necessarily.
People, I believe, may be born with certain archetypes pre-installed psychologically (genetically); there is no tabula rasa (blank slate). They might relate more with an archetype aspect to an particular type of profession; and they are that type of person. There is another possibility, that if the number of archetypes numbers in the millions then it is probably certain we all share the same basic psychological archetypes with only variation around the edges. We have 15 or so archetypes in particular which are not aspect to another person we know; and they have 15 or so of their own different types of character & personality archetypes.
But Freud was definitely an role-model for proper psychiatric treatment, which is difficult to access even today. As well as, perhaps, an continuing role-model for the community I am in. He had such depth of empathy for the human character and his own, that it was like an doctoring upon the society with far-reaching consequences. An tradition of empathy for the inhuman condition that continues to this day. The boy wants his mother sexually and becomes jealous of the father. But has anyone read it as an homophobic remark? The boy relates to his mother better sexually because he is gay which fuels the hatred of the father because all gay boys (people) are that way because of their defiance of their father figures. The hostility toward the father and the animosity between them is caused by the boy being an faggot. Needing constant coddling and the Mother's Love like he was still an baby. Which fuels the hatred of the Mother in the Father and tears the whole family apart.
Anyway, it is apparent that the Oedipal complex or feminine-Oedipal complex (Electra) is an stretch of psychoanalytical logic; and it is that way for an reason that Freud doctored its mark into society. Like etched wood in the rafters. There is not enough evidence to support such an figure and it is only intended as an joke, to make an kind of mockery of those who believe it.
The real question is whether Freud would do that to himself (mockery).
Was it ever justified to make abuse of the self?
The only reason the boy wants the mother sexually is that he is gay—he wants the mother sexually against his own father's wishes because he is is an twisted sexually idyllic object. An dud. An momma's boy through and through. Someone who cannot rise above homosexuality into an state of superiority. Someone who is weak on the inside-out. Someone who wants his father's penis truly but instead the mother is in the way, an obstacle (merely just an object herself) in an type of psycho-antifeministic chasm shared with the young gay son as the spectacle to the father who rejects the homosexuality of the mother because it affirms the homosexuality of the father.
The only reason the Oedipal Conflict worked as an theory was that Freud was willing to make the gamble, that most people would not be able to get over the fact of its clear homophobic intent; which is what he was trying to do. He was sailing the fact that many people were homophobic about the fact of an gay person's upbringing. They thought it was the parents' fault, one or the other; and there were absurd reasons why both of them were to blame. This was the intended picture Freud was hanging up with an hammer and nail for humanity: an lot of people, sadly, would believe this theory because they were homophobic. The sexual development of the child wasn't an abomination caused by either the father or the mother by being themselves weak and homosexually abused; and weak to the systemic process of being homosexually abused. The proper repression of the homosexual mind was in part due to an upbringing; and this fact itself was the problem humanity couldn't get over.
Sure we all have an theory about why the upbringing was to blame for his homosexuality; Freud seems to be saying. But do we know what causes it in females? And this was the dare he had made, perhaps, against someone who had less empathy than he did.
Did you know‽ Did you really know‽ Huh, punk‽
The Oedipal complex was absurd but it was exact in calculation: the absurdism of it most people couldn't get over; and that was the power of its effective-ity. Within the draws of his scope of authority; the real authority super powers that he had, himself. That was why it was important for locating an jargon system of intelligence, power, and knowledge. It framed things an certain way; that we could look at it and decide for ourselves. It made subtle points we couldn't immediately directly fathom. If at first we thought Freud was making an point about one thing, we found he was making one about another. In an even more provocative way we just couldn't seem to find ourselves over or beyond. He was identifying the point at which we thought about him sexually, and the truth that it was bound to happen at some point in everyone's psychology. We decided whether we were or weren't attracted to him.
What it mattered in the theory of the father figure.
Perhaps Freud's most powerful archetype, possibly to point out how silly it was. That we were all adults of an certain type that knew how to have fun.
Not in need of an father figure.
And that's why Freud happened to be so effective as an character type himself.
He really genuinely cared about people and made an vast effort to make an difference that would help them.
I had often wished I had my own Freudian examiner, who would lay me back in an chair. And I believed that was the right way to conduct operations when it is in an psychoanalytic school of behavior. The right kind of psychiatrist like that, apparently, is too expensive for the average Canadian.
He's making an point about it; he's saying to you you actually believe that that an boy can grow up hating his father because he wants to fuck his mother. And that's what I'm making an point about. Not your ideas. My ideas.
He isn't necessarily subject to your authority because he considers himself an authority figure.
You actually think we genetically and biologically have an instinct, an urge toward incest.
Do you actually believe that‽
Are you going to Freudian Slip about it‽
This was the genuine thought consideration he thought you should have.
And even the lingering smell that kept Denmark of that rank offense; that this was the development in childhood of an gay person.
Someone who was even incestual against the father.
To want both his Mother's bed and his father's. To be himself the failure in childhood that had produced the mark, the blemish upon humanity. To make us gay against Christianity.
Enter, all Major World Religions to clean up after the disaster.
That being gay is an complex.
That sexual development in childhood was an joke; just an product of the ego one wanted to avoid. The realization that one's own sexual development includes the attraction to either the mother or the father. What an cruel, cruel prank to play upon humanity Freud had made.
But when I think of what might have happened if Freud hadn't stepped in.
It might be harder for the Ego to judge Freud.
People really were this messed up and needed doctoring of the absurd kind of help to help them through childhood and into adulthood despite many repressed feelings.
What was necessarily wrong with just meditating or reflecting on the subject of one's attraction to one's own mother or father? And did it lead to further insight?
Freud's claim was so outrageous it couldn't be ignored. That was what he had leveraged his bet therefore on; what he had actually said about the everything of human psychology was so subtle most people couldn't pick up on it, and that only proved his argument further.
No comments:
Post a Comment