Standing notions of Freudian Psychology on its head junyabee: Standing notions of Freudian Psychology on its head.(https://forums.craigslist.org/?act=Q&ID=303161570 ). < Forum_Crasher > : . . : . . : . . Standing notions of Freudian Psychology-II (https://forums.craigslist.org/?act=Q&ID=303169710 )< Forum_Crasher : . . : . . : . . : . . Further elaboration.(https://forums.craigslist.org/?act=Q&ID=303181495 ). < Forum_Crasher > junyabee: MATERIAL ILLUSION OF CHANGE & SUBLIMATING MORBIDITY We take pride in the "more sophisticated" living conditions in which we live than what most of our parents did, and , definitely better, than those who lived 100, 150, 1500 years prior to us. But our natures and environment have only changed appearances but not that much in the peak levels of brutality-physical or psychological. If we were to take data on the percentage of those now and in the past facing the trauma or comforts of their existence, I'd bet that the same ratios of conditions would apply to the different hierarchies of those with power and those dis-empowered. For that you could call it the 'eternal ratio' of suffering and pleasure that would occur in a structure that's organized around a certain paradigm of operation. In the case of this operation, we are in an enchanted, 'Stockholm Syndrome-like' captivity in a matrix of conceptual logic limitations. Those limitations would and do lead to unique and ingenious derivations of adaptations for the subjects to find or seek some accommodation to their circumstances. This is what happens when having that peak, cathartic experience of satiation to satisfaction is based on a non-ubiquitous availability and distribution by condition or circumstances. People, as Freud pointed out, will seek that surrogate substitute-consciously or subconsciously-for that iconic event of catharsis in their past or that presented to them as an iconic experience, so they may have some representational sense of what would now be a neurotic, idyllic construction for them. Would this not be applicable for any definable limitation of informal or formal substance? In a more amorphous set of potentials for which one's own inherent construction for functioning is the sole, limiting variable, plus also having the prerogative of choice to the point of its nullification or destruction by its own compulsive nature of that choice and not with any external variable being a cognizant factor for the subject; it would be the full expression of the subject's nature. I am suggesting that this nature still serves, unwittingly to the subject, a process that uses the telepathic-telemtric transmission of the subject's energy as data points for the process' global network in which the subject exists. The subject is a 'generational progeny', derived from the original expression that has extended itself out in branches to various processes. The present 'Stockholm Syndrome-like' subjects are just a more parochially constructed limitation, of dead-end morbidity of form-literally. Those who are in a less parochial, paradigm construction would be closer to the unrestrained energy of their progenitor processes, and having a less artificial and ersatz, sublimated expressions of the progenitor's energy process', would have a lesser morbidity of outcomes, since the flow of energy wouldn't gravitate to forms that weigh against its ability of versatile change for a greater vitality of transformative energy. junyabee: Updated revision: Turning Freudian Theory on its head!-II https://www.academia.edu/41422542/Turning_Freudian_Theory_on_its_head_  DIAMONDfire: i agree thats turning Freud's theory on its head. the problem with it is Freud was addressing people in distress. this passage seems to refer to people in calm. yet it does shed light on an alternate version of the mind and life-experience. and it is ironic that this version of mind life is somewhat like madness? or neuroticism? yet it clams greater health and vitality. my mind starts to penetrate indigenous realities when I consider the difference. from what i understand madness was a part of indigenous culture. and various practices were based on curbing the intense emotions. this we do not do in western culture. and ever since the findings in psychology and the like a great exploitation has subsumed. so the patient is as if on the side of an ice cliff knocking hammers into ice pulling them-self upward. the tide is obviously against them. thats where Freud intervened. his therapy may or may not have worked. but his theories are rock solid. meaning can be obtained from them. but all the same a trip to India could essentially produce the cognitive situations you prescribe. to a place where the opposite psychic forces are working. (Edited by DIAMONDfire) junyabee: The whole idea of we being a social animal, goes back to Weber's Structural Functionalism. Even as millennial old traditions and customs. the structure followed a utilitarian expedience, that just evolved and morphed to what we have today. I see it as a digression from a more mundane operation of we being purely logistical gatherers, who then made the leap of social comparisons on what and the manner by which we acquisitioned what we possess, than as just gathering what was needed for the energy transportings of our unconscious and our dreams DIAMONDfire: i see Freud as more of a doctor and therefore primarily concerned with diagnosis. we all know his theory of life was radical and largely philosophical and very in keeping with the movement of the time (the existentialists). but as far as I have read the object of Freud's work was to obtain insight. and this being conscious insight into the nature of ones condition as a mode of healing. the question is how is this achieved? it would seem the love of knowledge would be a part of the answer. because Freud was so philosophical. but this highlights such as a perspective such as your in respect to dreams and serendipities holding the key to life as opposed to the objectivist position of knowledge. Freud tried to bridge this divide and i am not educated enough on his work to know if he succeeded but I will claim hard philosophy was the outcome. but i side with Foucault and believe madness must be turned into an art. the socialistic elements of madness being the prime factors revealing its nature. junyabee: Madness is existence outside of conventional decorum (forms), and in the absolute sense would be 'ars gratia artis!' DIAMONDfire: do you mean to say madness is 'art (something) greater than the art (forms)?' or decorum as you state it. what does 'ars gratia artis' mean? is that latin? junyabee: Art for the sake of art.. If art is the documented exhibition of imaginative forms, then wouldn't madness be the informal expression of that? DIAMONDfire: art is the creation of form(s). it is a creation act. it takes pain and work and mastery of the medium used. i think Foucault means the opposite of that to be madness. it is to say that madness is a work of art waiting to be created. he doesn't state exactly what madness is because it is not philosophically or in respect to meaning viable. so I disagree madness is not an art for arts sake. it is the abolition of art of no inherent meaning and requires a creation act. DIAMONDfire: Foucault regarded madness to be fundamental irrationality. and his thesis was when that irrationality was regarded with reason/rationality by specialists two antagonistic worlds were created. the more the physician pushed the more the madness gained. it became a battle of worlds or existing. and you see that everywhere today. but in order to heal a newer world had to be created, or in an art. i think its quite clear that for Foucault it was/is a social disorder. junyabee: Rationality=a consensus of logical madness Then madness=the subjective anomaly to those consensus forms of logic all movement requires effort and (in)voluntary intent DIAMONDfire: in that case it can be concluded there is a challenge of reason. but reason is supported in each by the claims of each. objectivists' attempts at wisdom fight each other for supremacy. originally I suppose that it/was about winning the crowd. and i know thats not smart per se, but its the system we use in the west. our deep philosophy hinges on it. junyabee: There's trying to force/fabricate a consensus, and then there's fulfilling a willful desire/imperative (more so the latter).. Reason and consensus are nice, but the one time Nietzsche and I agree is the demonstration of a persevering will. DIAMONDfire: do you see a link between: ego - morality - objectivity, (emphasis on morality in the sense that it is objectivity)?, or is easily perverted: as Nietzsche did. he wanted man to become immoral for betterments sake perhaps because of it, this inconsistency in thought and life. but its not a dumb immorality. Zarathustra is a brutal but intelligent man. the will to power does strike me as something similar to what you demonstrate philosophically. in fact i see a striking resemblance only in a different form. but for me i follow Nietzsche for the man he was, the philosopher. the writer and the sufferer. his writing has really introduced me to philosophical understanding. and i believe he was the first of our kind in history. junyabee: Morality being the ego's excuse, narrowly. Morality, per se, being that state of grace of subjectively feeling a sacredness.. Nietzsche may have been the 'honest polemicist' of philosophers. He had a Machiavellian sense of human nature and intent. DIAMONDfire: Nietzsche was an atheist because of that sacredness. i had thought it was something he was running from within perhaps to do with his father who was a clergyman. i guess this could be linked to his Machiavellian nature? course i think of his work endowed with meaning (it could be my bias) but his strength as a thinker i think made his work go beyond the subjective and the objective into a realm of its own. i attributed this to his study of philology. he had the power of mind to interpret life on the back of ancient texts. and due to his sicknesses wrote for survival. but at his funeral his family openly referred to him as saintly. and he wouldn't have wanted that reference i feel. i think madness has been linked to his personality. all the pieces fit. madness is sacred. DIAMONDfire: heavily academically influenced. writing for survival. and when you think about sickness in metaphysical terms you have to conclude some kind of spiritual disorder. i think madness comes into it. into a lot of things i suppose. if you take the raw roots of what Nietzsche wrote its almost impossible to follow practically. he denounced german idealism but i feel his work is very much a product of the mind. and he confessed he was everything but what he wrote about. i am thinking of his philosophy now as more like a value. | Philosophy Chat Room 7 People Chatting Similar Conversations |