subconscious people
070801 11:28 UNIDENTIFIED SUBCONSCIOUS PEOPLE
140801 03:31 There is much controversy as to credit deserved by Sigmund Freud with regard to the notion called “The Unconscious” (and similar designations through history). Actually, as Marx and Engels averred, “All history is the unconscious record of sub conscious people, dead and alive”.
04:18 A problem that absorbs my attention is the figure-ground conundrum as to the people who survived the disasters of the past, and present, and those who were killed or maimed or psychologically harmed---people celebrate, e g, victory; but for the dead, there is death only; is this not so?! What view can the people now alive and relatively unharmed have of the experience of having been eliminated from life? I do not pretend to be able to answer this.
150801 16:28 How to be happy after Freud. It depends on how we view the premise of happiness: if Freud is addressing the Viennese of 1930 he may be telling them their pretentions are silly---but if we accept the premises of unconsciousness, then we can include the task of dealing with it in our concept of happiness. Freud can be used to support a social attitude and an ethnic attitude. Some societies know nothing of Freudian notions, others revel in them. To me, he is consensual validation (jargon for support by other), and saving witness (jargon for exactly what it sounds like). In USA Freud is part of the generational conflicts part of immigrants, first generation, second generation, etc---in the general paradox of Americans wanting to be like Americans, the Americans are embarrassed by being also not Americans (even the Americans who are Americans are actively rejected by the Americans)(or until recently) so we dissect, disassemble, deconstruct, and accordingly psychoanalyse (after all, psychology is stuck in the paradox individual/all, while pretending to be “science”)---and all this in a culture based on individuality, and the opposing concept luddite (break everything) equality (perversion of The Declaration of Independence). In the meantime it is smug arrogant ignorance for any society or nation to pretend it is free of the crap characterizing Vienna then. By the way, innovaters have competitors: Darwin/Wallace, Edison/that other guy. And note Freud´s opponents: they confirm the importance of freud himself by the very fact of their wrongness. Freud was wrong in some details, and in some issues---but basically he was right, while others were/are wrong. It is left to me to sort it out, as i go along; we cannot reasonably expect one genius to do it all in one lifetime. In sum, I believe he mainly attcked simple SMUGNESS as happiness. So we can credit Charles Dickens with all of Freud´s thought, as he, in the opening of “A Tale of Two Cities” attacked smugness. But even Poe did not set up a method of psychotherapy (well, but Poe died young, and just as he was about to propose a theory of phallicity (in the unfinished tale “The Lighthouse”)--- i do not approve however of Freud complimenting (even altho quite lefthandedly) the silly tome by Marie Bonaparte calling Poe sexually impotent.
17:21 Compare (as I think has been done ) Confucius v v Freud.
søndag 18. november 2001 01:45 I forgot what I meant by this: When you want someone to do something, even if you know they want to do it, and they´re trying to get you to do it (with them?), you still have to convince them to do it. 01:48 Praise is the enemy. 07:58 What animals observe themselves psychologically? n b. difference between observing others thus, and oneself internally. and with/without theory. 08:00 Glenn said: “I am because i think i think”. 08:05 Richard said: “Is it worth being in this herd?”. 08:41 People choose professions so as to have pedestals for opinions they formed in childhood. Their opinions are not formed by their professions. Consider this v v Dworkin saying the legal profession is an eternal game of Ghost.
subconscious people søndag 13. januar 2002 18:36 As little children, more than others, are constantly being taught, they should be also allowed assertiveness by our responding with discretion when they express their own primitive nature by, e g, speaking wrong --- we should not in every instance impose language, but rather answer their infantile burblings intelligently at least sometimes. Robert Lindner emphasized the necessity of the experiencing of rebellion; Harry Stack Sullivan empasized the importance of timing (vs what he called “timing- disasters”); I suggest that adults can easily skid into a mire of Skinner, while trying to capitalize on the opportunities for massive teaching in the early years, thus excluding necessary self-assertion, which indeed, can be expressed more harmlessly in early childhood than at other times --- and the results of the child´s attempts in self-expressive assertion are remembered and form character, of far greater importance than many of those lessons rushed upon the very young in some Olympics of programming. Indeed, it can in many instances be precisely those children who are smart to conform who need opportunities of rebellion per se, so as to escape losing the capacity to challenge, whether others or their own minds.
:--- 070202 2130 I refer to a few notions, and in coordination: I introduce these thoughts by mentioning my important basic theory that children even in early childhood have an urge to order including justice. I will not right now go into detail about that, as I want to push on and get to my important insight of today. I mention my notion of counter-urge --- like a basic urge but prompted by life experience. Also I go past that at the moment so as to proceed. What I am getting at is: there is a fundamental counter-urge to be the source of the emotions provoked in oneself; this counter-urge can be seen in terms of Freudian unconscious, as an example of what can sweep us up in its own power whether one wants to behave in a certain way or not (want seen as conscious).
I may as well go immediately to how my concept could function in therapy: I imagine a therapist saying to a patient/client "You do not want to be hated, do you?" --- whereas that is precisely what the client wants subconsciously.
There develop counter-urges in us due to our experiences in everyday life, including onešs response to being treated badly, with concomitant feelings of hatred toward the perpetrator --- the counter-urge is the desire to experience being the object of onešs own hatred; accordingly we would want to behave so as to be hated. Hitler, I suppose, wanted people to feel toward himself the way he felt toward his own father who beat him.
I believe that people have such an overpowering basic urge to order and justice, that they are compelled to complete the circle of hatred, by experiencing directed at themasleves the identical emotion they feel toward others, whether good or bad.
So, to say to a client who behaves provocatively toward a loved one, that he does not want that person to hate him, is missing the point: the client indeed DOES want the loved one to hate him/her.
Of course I mean in the sense that the unconscious dominates our behavior. Obviously such conduct is neurotic and destructive.
I at this point wish to jump over to the application of this in the realm of societal dysfunction: why do people accept rotten social conditions of terrorization among each other? I suggest that they cling to each otheršs exasperation conspiratorially so as to escape accusation of cowardice --- cowardice in this sense being the abandonment of the basic urge to order/justice. The sacrifices attending such social pattern are accepted so as to maintain the illusion that there is ORDER/JUSTICE. Indeed, in the shame in interpersonal relationships when one is seen as abandoning order/justice, we see the tip of the iceberg of the more fundamental compulsion to maintain in oneself the fantasy of order/justice. As embarrassing (to put it mildly) as is the situation of shame before a loved one, that of shame before oneself in onešs unconscious is overwhelming. One accordingly sacrifices even onešs most cherished relationships on the altar of frustrated urge to order/justice --- the counter-urge to rationalize (I e, to make consistent) onešs own hatred of another person lasts forever and like a volcano blasts forth uncontrollably (if one cannot summon and marshal the force and power of enlightened intellect against such catastrophe).
It is also an apercu (revealing facet) that the pretense to strict order is a characteristic feature of repressive regimes --- both, the perpetrators of such societal aberration and the masses under them manifest the overcompensation of deprivation of order. Their behavior is accessible "only" to the understanding of anthropologists with detachment and healthy perspective --- the interweaving of mass brutal behavior wraps the objects as thoroughly as a spider-web.
We outside such extreme horror-shows stand back and wonder, and ask ourselves, "Donšt they realize they are behaving hatefully to one another as well as to others outside?". They may not realize why they behave so, but they know they are provoking hate, and that they MUST.
Unless we can dissect this pattern, it will persist and produce infinite horror.
Remember that a perversion is (according to my own view) a good impulse gone bad: we need order because we need benign predictability, the comfort of knowing that the breast will return and the big people will not harm us. We do not abandon that need, even in the face of chaos --- indeed, we then all the more insist on it .
So when hatred is aroused in oneself he/she must COMPREHEND it. The self has been invaded by emotions alien to onešs balance. Note that the observed identification with the conqueror (even of oneself) is tied in with all this, as is the general notion of terror as a method of subjugation, including the terror of getting one to behave terribly, like trainee Nazis got to kill wantonly.
The exasperation is constant and unremitting; it takes away order from onešs universe. Since one cannot win against them, one joins them.
Note that these ideas go to the question of what was Freudšs contribution: we can go back to Voltaire and to Poe and find exploration of what we now call the unconscious, but there we do not find a systematic concession to the primacy of an organized system of control dominating the conscious mind. It is as we now explore the dominant unconscious that we grow increasingly willing to acknowledge that we are creatures stuck on pins rooted in the unconscious. We consider (I say we but of course I mean myself) the Buddhist conundrum of being caught hanging from a ledge by a branch which is being gnawed by a creature not our friend --- this is not the being saved of the Born Again Christian, it is the awareness that we must fly by the seat of our pants.
But with awareness of certain idiosyncratic logic mechanisms operating in the dimension we call the unconscious mind, we can chop away at the ants invading our jungle plantation.
There is a loyalty to others of one group or other as we associate with other people, and we thus replace the native sense of order with a construct built as we go along with other people with whom we bond, vs others with whom we do not bond. There is a loyalty in a generation of children vs the generation of their parents. But among our peers, individuals manifest the programs coming from the parental generation, and so the sense of order we experience in our childhood peer group is polluted by interference which must be understood because it cannot be trusted, since we cannot judge it without the understanding which alone can allow trust by establishing parameters of safety in which betrayal is sanitized. But we have to live from day to day, in this welter of instability.
Intellect develops accordingly to save us from madness, even as we learn language to save us from incomprehension.
Of course enlightened parents recognize the paradox and straddle the fence between generations by letting the child know about the fence.
It may be helpful in explaining these concepts, if we consider the crook who is a crook because he himself was robbed, and wants to mirror his feelings in the victim --- by projecting the alien feelings, one confirms that other people have cthem also, and that oneself is not aberrant. Aberrance is INTOLERABLE.
Aberrance is the non-existence of the marooned.
When we make life scenarios, we plan for long term satisfaction of balance disturbed, whatever the cost as evaluated in a conscious sense --- and one of the many functions of dreams is to work in secret to this purpose. It is far more important to satisfy this compulsion than to keep happy relationships (of course in a context of health, it is not , and so the battle proceeds, between the dead hand of the past and the aspiring blossoms of evolution).
Of course, in this jungle of justice, we identify/empathize with other people individually or in groups, and so do crimes infect like plagues. Many problems in relationships between adult men and women come from the feelings of resentment sourced in what was seen as oppression of one parent by another way back when: even when in fact the actual current mate is entirely innocent, he/she is a symbol to be exploited for eternal justice/order. But what I am here emphasizing is that this is not only hostility directed at a third party instead of at the proper source of the hostility, it is a pattern sourced in the counter-urge to see the emotion in another which one has felt oneself (and/or identified with).
Goodnite 070202 23:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------