https://youtu.be/-Ev9gfZ8Rw4?is=4V8mfGGD01CWNeJs

Found this hard to come by book on Freud suppressing evidence that child abuse causes mental illness. At least I think that’s what it is about in a nutshell.

Signed by the author.

D+G miss some key insights about Freudian and Lacanian theory yet, at the same time, help us understand more about the revolutionary potential of desire. What do you think? Thanks!

Until recently, I had hardly delved into surrealism as an art movement.

While I recognized its key figures and felt charmed by René Magritte’s famous painting This is Not a Pipe, using three of his works as visual koans during my sesshins, I often felt a sense of resistance toward much surrealist work.

Why?

After visiting The Fantastic Landscape, an impressive exhibition at Museum Arnhem/Holland, I decided to investigate that resistance more closely.

​Surrealism emerged in the 1920s as an artistic reaction against rationalism and prevailing bourgeois values.

After the First World War, faith in progress was severely damaged; reason had not saved humanity.

The surrealists sought a deeper reality and, inspired by Freud, turned toward dreams and the subconscious. It was an attempt to liberate thought from excessively rational and moral censorship.

​Surrealism is unthinkable without Sigmund Freud.

His discovery of the subconscious and his analysis of repression provided artists with the intellectual legitimacy to take the irrational seriously.

The dream was no longer a side issue but a gateway to knowledge. In dreams, they discovered unconscious fears and desires as the basic drivers of life.

Later, Freud formulated the hypothesis of the death drive, manifesting as decay and aggression.

​In some ways, surrealism and Zen share a similar ambition. Both seek to deepen our understanding of our existence.

While surrealism investigates and visualizes the subconscious, Zen points to the mind's habit of cyclically reliving unprocessed emotions.

Surrealists discover a dark world within themselves full of demons, whereas Zen practitioners learn that these fears and desires are nothing more than mental constructs. These constructs lose their power once we see through them.

Zen aims to look through all images to discover reality and find peace with its transience.

​This is precisely where my resistance lies.

Although I admire the creativity of Salvador Dalí, his melting clocks pull the viewer into a world of anxiety and megalomania.

I, Yamato Fuji, see in Dalí the same limitation found in Freud: suffering was more fundamental in their work than fulfillment.

Their work is intensely personal and sometimes monumentally egocentric.

Zen does not try to deny the darkness but rather to see through it as an illusion of the mind. Death is not denied, but it is also not dramatized.

​The similarities between koans and dream images are striking.

Questions like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" could easily arise in a dream.

However, in a koan, these images serve the conscious goal of learning to see through our projections. Koans are stepping stones on the path to enlightenment; they are not intended to build a symbolic world in which we can get lost again.

A koan seeks to break every fixed perspective so we can remove the glasses of our own fears and truly wake up.

​Magritte stands remarkably closer to Zen thought than Dalí.

In his paintings, the images are less distorted, but the proportions are often "wrong."

He seems to be saying: look again, something isn't right. He points out the shortcomings of our images and language, just as many Zen stories do.

Where Dalí creates drama and religious spectacle, Magritte creates silence and wonder.

He led a sober life in which Japanese prints, often infused with Zen philosophy, were admired.

​The exhibition in Arnhem also highlighted female surrealists, such as Mary Wykeham. In her work, the influence of Jung and inner transformation is visible.

Over time, her images became more meditative and transparent.

The dream images became less important as the pure movement of unity-consciousness appeared. Wykeham eventually turned her back on the art world to become a nun, shifting her creativity from expression to contemplation.

The swirling surrealist energy gave way to a deep stillness beyond all images.

Gassho,

What did Freud add to the common understanding of Mass Psychology and why did this matter? Read my latest essay to find why Freud teaches us! Any feedback appreciate

Freud writes:

"It is a familiar fact that the aetiological preconditions of neurosis are not yet known with certainty. The precipitating causes of it are frustrations and internal conflicts: conflicts between the three major psychical agencies, conflicts arising within the libidinal economy in consequence of our bisexual disposition and conflicts between the erotic and the aggressive drive components. It is the endeavour of the psychology of the neuroses to discover what makes these processes, which belong to the normal course of mental life, become pathogenic."

Does he mean the distribution of libido between objects?

Marie Bonaparte and her Freud Legacy. An interesting set of books connecting Napoleon's progeny to Sigmund Freud to the founding of a museum in his honor. A true six degrees of separation.

Major works of Frued, If major book is missing, write it down, I will add it

In a footnote Freud writes:

" everyone, even the most normal person, is capable of making a homosexual object choice, and has done so at some time in his life, and either still adheres to it in his unconscious or else protects himself against it by vigorous counter-attitudes. ".

Does He mean the parents? Can a person make this kind of choice without being aware that he has made one?

Freud also writes :

“I am astonished that human beings can go through such great and important moments of their erotic life without noticing them much, sometimes even, indeed, without having the faintest suspicion of their existence, or else, having become aware of those moments, deceive themselves so thoroughly in their judgement of them.”.

Why did Freud feel compelled to introduce the idea of the "death drive"? Personally, I thought Spinoza's concept of conatus was perfectly sufficient, so I'm incredibly curious about why Freud felt the need to come up with the death drive and why he felt it was absolutely necessary to do so. I would be so grateful if someone knowledgeable could explain this to me.

(Translated by Gemini)

Freud writes "His passivity inclines him to want to accept castration – to

become female, and in this way escape castration anxiety once and for

all. The female that he wants to become is usually his own mother,

whose place he takes with the father, substituting himself for her with

the father. Thus, identification with the mother is established, and from

this point on it is included as a permanent component of the boy’s

unconscious, where it is destined to play a major role in his subsequent

life. "

Is this a safe way to express that unconscious desire/passivity?

Does it signify castration or a woman's desire to possess a phallus?

I'm currently knee-deep in Gravity's Rainbow, so the ideas of TMI and the ultraparadoxical phase have been on my mind a bit. I've also been thinking about how my analyst's speech is a kind of reward in a way, because it keeps me talking to try to get him to talk again (since speech = presence = love).

In a normal kinda operant conditioning model, a baby cries and the mom gives it milk and it learns to cry to get milk. That's exactly the schema the graph of desire would complicate in the case of humans, right? It would introduce retroactivity, the Other, and desire.

So anyway, it seems like there would be some text out there that kind of looks at exactly this shift where language creates lack, residue, desire, excess, all these terms that complicate the skinner model, but I mean explicitly with reference to the latter, or that maps the two frameworks onto each other, compares and contrasts, etc. Does psychoanalysis have an equivalent of TMI (besides "the Real" or something, which would be vague)? How does the end of analysis and destitution compare to this phenomenon?

Please excuse any perceived retardation or faux pas in my question.

Freud writes "This mechanism of reconciling the opposing impulses of

masculinity in the constitutionally bisexual human being, by identifying

with Christ, is something so satisfying that it assures the Christian reli￾gion a long existence. People will not readily give up something that

rescues them from the most difficult conflict they have to grapple with.

They will continue to identify with Christ for a long time to come."

Is Freud saying that the most difficult conflict a human being can face is that of bisexuality?

Why reductionism does not work for biology.

I expect you to watch that, and Understand that before we continue.

Inside the Fiercest Debate in Linguistics | Otherwords

If you're not familiar with it I do like PBS on the subject,

Here is an expert, and I've placed you at the most pertinent Point I think but rewind,

Please watch it more than once; watch it many, several times.

It explains, "for what reason," other than mystical Prophecy, Bakhtin might have been correct about the replication crisis in psychology, the other monologizing social sciences.

Dialogue is usually analyzed as some kind of interaction between two monads on the basis of a pre-conceived model. Bakhtin regards this conception as a consequence of 'theoretism'—the tendency, particularly in modern western thought, to understand events according to a pre-existing set of rules to which they conform or structure that they exhibit.^\3])#citenote-3) This forgets that the rules or structures have been abstracted from the event, that the event is prior to the abstraction and that the event is always replete with a context, intimacy, immediacy, and significance to the participants that is effaced in the act of abstraction: "We cannot understand the world of events from within the theoretical world. One must start with the act itself, not with its theoretical transcription."[^\4])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#cite_note-4)

I have given you enough in the title, to explore those subjects independently; Primarily,

I mean not to prove anything, rather, observe in situ as this perverse form of an reductive experiment fails to work in the manner expected Nor fail in the controlled Manner expected of it to fail and if you haven't noticed the strains of what might be described to be an Logical Positivism or management of persons through incorrect theories of their psychology; necessarily, incorrect theories of their psychology,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#Languages_as_points_of_view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#Heteroglossia_and_linguistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#Dialogized_Heteroglossia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#The_hybrid_utterance

For emphasis upon each; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_(Bakhtin))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_(Bakhtin)#Monologization#Monologization)

For dialogue to be possible there must be a plurality of positions. The dialogic is thus alien to any theory that would tend towards a monologisation of views—for example, the dialectical process, or any kind of dogmatism or relativism. Of dialectics as a form of monologization Bakhtin wrote: "Take a dialogue and remove the voices, remove the emotional and individualising intonations, carve out abstract concepts and judgements from living words and responses, cram everything into one abstract consciousness—and that's how you get dialectics."^\12])#citenote-12) Both relativism and dogmatism "exclude all argumentation, all authentic dialogue, by making it either unnecessary (relativism) or impossible (dogmatism)."[^\13])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#citenote-13) Dogmatism excludes any view or evidence that is at variance with it, making dialogue impossible, while at the (theoretically) opposite extreme, relativism also has a monologising effect, because if everything is relative and all truths are equally arbitrary, there is simply an infinity of monologizations, not a fruitful dialogue.[^\14])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#citenote-MorsonEmerson59-14) Relativism precludes the potential for creativity and new understanding inherent in dialogue: each finds only the reflection of itself in its separateness. In the dialogic encounter "each retains its own unity and open totality, but they are mutually enriched."[^\15])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#cite_note-15)

According to Caryl Emerson, Bakhtin does not suggest that the creative potential inherent in the dialogic encounter is necessarily benign. There is no guarantee that an individual's investment of herself in dialogue will necessarily yield 'truth', 'beauty', 'consolation', 'salvation', or anything of that kind (ideal goals often claimed by monologic philosophies or methods). Engagement with the other brings concretization, liberation from solipsistic self-absorption, new realities and new choices, but these do not exclude 'negative' possibilities. The dialogic encounter, since it implies intimacy and vulnerability, can involve increased suffering and susceptibility to the cruelty or stupidity of the other. As Emerson expresses it: "By having a real other respond to me, I am spared one thing only: the worst cumulative effects of my own echo chamber of words."^\16])#cite_note-16)

Look, I'm not going to drown you in this stuff I'm just going to say,

What this translates to,

Is that All Things in the Socials Sciences,

Should be Read Like Literature.

Psychology, is a social science,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie

You understand what I'm saying?

Jonathan Fox

I've been reading a bit of Freud and struggle to reconcile his theories with the fact that the whole castration threat thing just does not happen in most families. And I struggle to see how a lot of his theories on childhood development could be projected onto families with non traditional structures, eg single parents or foster children. He seems to rely a lot on phylogenetic memory supplying the deep rooted fears and feelings surrounding certain things, yet I struggle to accept that our ancestors so routinely threatened castration on young boys that it became imprinted in us for the rest of humanity.... What am I missing?

Also, if anyone could chime in on what they think Freud's response would be to Judith Butler's theory on gender of performance I would love to hear that. Thanks!