Freud's O-complex: A falsity!

Many take Freud’s concept of the Oedipus complex to be the fundamental impetus within the male psyche. Freud based this concept off the Greek myth of Oedipus, hence the name of the complex; but what Freud didn’t realize is that the myth of Oedipus was an aberration of a mono-myth of royal investiture, and not something that represents the ordinary male psyche.

In the mono-myth, the underlying psychological subtext is representative of the male desire for the damsel in distress, not the mother. The male hero has to undergo a series of trials in order to prove his worth and acquire the female. A salient motif is a carnivorous combat with a female monster, which is symbolic of the male’s forceful separation from the mother’s framework. The father figure within the myths can take the form of a king, who sends the male hero on a quest to defeat such monsters. But these father figures are never killed, there is no subtext of patricide.

The standard, non-aberrational myths include that of Jason, Bellerophon, and Perseus.

The myth of Oedipus is an aberration of these standard myths of royal investiture, possibly a satire of them. Examples of deviations within the O-myth: Oedipus, instead of battling the female monster ( Sphinx ) with brute force, uses the power of his intellect; Instead of accepting the guidance of gods and male figures, he rejects them and even kills a man. And the subtextual ramifications of this aberration are incest and patricide. The conventional myth’s subtextual telos is for the acquisition of the non-familial female, the damsel in distress and the successful completion of royal investiture, or manhood.

Freud believed that the O-myth was representative of the male psyche in general; but he was incorrect, as prior mentioned. The general and standard myths are non-patricidal and non-incestous.


I think you nailed it.

Yeah… that’s a no-brainer. You’re probably not going to get many replies because it’s so obvious you’re correct.

Lol I’m waiting for all the die-hard, phallic-obssessed Freudians to come out of the woodwork…

Freud was hell-bent upon maintaining this O-complex concept; he told Jung to never abandon it!

I know someone who will be able to produce a good argument for the Oedipus complex, but it will severely abstract the elements.
What do you think, in the meantime, about phallus based psychology? That is a different and more general issue compared to the Oedipus complex, if that is taken literally.

Its interesting though that the O complex seems to reverse the sexual terms. In your description of the traditional ‘complex’, it is rather the mother who is ‘killed’ (carnivorously overcome) and the father who is loved, ‘coupled with’.

Why would this reversal have occurred, in any mind at all? What does it signify?

The Titans slayed their fathers, until Zeus, who slayed Kronos, but was not slayed by his offspring.
Was Freud an advocate of ‘Titanism’?

Most parts of Sigmund Freud’s whole theory are false.

I wonder what Freud would say about this though.

It is actually merely impulse transference/association.

The subconscious, the Id, is a theorist by necessity. The subconscious is the prisoner in Plato’s/Socrates’ cave. It has to guess about what is to be favored and what isn’t based upon shadowy reflections of sensations stemming from the environment and its own neural wiring and hormonal responses. And just as naive philosophers make bizarre theories concerning the make and cause of the universe and all within it, the subconscious does the same, especially after medical interference (viruses, drugs, chemicals interfering with the nervous system, “wetware”).

Freud, also guessing at theories, noted the possibility that a son’s adoration of his mother becomes a sexual urge for his mother and from that stems a jealousy of the father. He likened it to the Oedipus story and thus gave the theoretical condition the name “Oedipus Complex”.

Especially under medical interference, the young mind, attempting to make sense of the environment in which it is cast, jumps to conclusions and acts upon them. And being a complex entity, every conclusion it draws and thus acts upon has extended, extrapolated effects upon following deductions and conclusions - the “complex”. Hormonal responses come about from an initial favorable deduction which leads to more associations with favor as the hormones become fallacious confirmation that the initial deduction was correct. The subconscious’ hypothesis gains self-deceiving evidence of validity.

And as that amplification of favor occurs, associated objects and tones from the environment become signs of that favor. The favor from an original guess become transferred to associated objects. The favor associated with the adoration of a young boy’s mother gets transferred to the mother’s female form and its natural association with sexual desire. Then, the threat of not being allowed what one desires due to the aggressiveness of another invokes an anger response known as “jealousy” so as to provide extra aggression toward the favored object. He becomes jealous and hateful of this father.

As he stated, it is “complex”.

Throughout history as these incidences occur more frequently than other times, medical interference is indicated (usually from social manipulators invoking decadence into a chosen society). It indicates that a fall into a dark age for that society is arriving.

Freud has great ideas and I tap them.
The fundamental of the ‘Oedipus complex’ is reasonable, i.e.

but his predicate part [below] missed the mark,

A Hypothesis [don’t take this too seriously]:
The basic point I believe is, humans are programmed within their DNA with an attraction and sexual desire to the opposite sex towards later consummation.
The sex drive is on a continuum and I don’t think we have understood at what point is this triggered even before pre-puberty and at the infant age.

The first instinctual trigger of the sex drive is the female form, i.e. the shoulder to hip ratio and other inherent and conventional features. There are many a time I felt ‘triggered’ by the first impression and it died down immediately when that ‘female’ turned around and when I heard the voice.

The neurons in the brain are vulnerable from defective connections starting from the womb till infancy. Note anaesthesia and other defective connectivities that result in all sort of perversions and abnormalities.

Thus in the course of active connectivity in the child brain, some of the circuits of the sexual drive may have been triggered and directed at the natural form of the female form whom the child has constant acquaintance, i.e. either mother or father.

Another explanation could be, there is a foundational connection of the sexual circuit to its related triggers during early age but made dormant in preparation for its mature use to be fully activated by hormones. There is always a possibility of slight variations and the triggers are spontaneously activated and direct at the most familiar form of the opposite sex.
Some child have such sexually feelings towards their parent, but the normal ones would have such neural connectivities inhibited as they grow up.

A similar comparison can be made on the inherent primordial ‘kill or be killed’ instinct or other instincts. Some [not all] child may instinctively have the urge to eliminate competitors [some sharks eat their siblings in the womb] or their minders if they are a source of strong stresses. Normally this will be inhibited as the child grows up but the extreme will go on to murder or be serial killers.

Freud was not a fool. He must have obtained various evidence from his patients (obviously a bias sample) and form a conclusion based on insufficient sampling and the knowledge base during his time.

Now we know better, however what is worth retaining is the concept of the ‘complex’ [by other psychologists as well] & sexual complex and how he went about it in detail within the constraints of his time.

Very far from from a no brainer after all. I am convinced that James explanation applies to our society, which is what I touchedcon ( though without grasping it like I do now ) by the suggestion that Freud was an advocate of Titanic society, which refers to the absence of just rule and dignity, a state of affairs where between father and son it is kill or be killed and where Titanic rulers hold sway with violence.

This state of affairs has been imposed on us now. Greek-western cvilization, the democratic, human based politics, has been removed from power altogether and its idea stands on the brink of being an irretrievable memory. Society is as James said. It is quite as bad, I realized with horror last night after understanding what had happened the past weeks while I was in Greece, as he has been saying.

So I suppose the O-complex is quite appropriate - not to healthy people, but to the men in our society.

The aim that now becomes singularly clear can be formulated as restoring the traditional myth structure, which means first to recognize the monster. Not as the mother, but as the ‘protective’ state. And all those who defend it, who prevent the man, by emotional blackmail usuaually, from addressing it as it is.

The mother archetype is the symbol of the medusa, and may be (is) represented in reality by men and women alike, and the real mother could I suppose well be on the mans side.

If you’re defending this argument you’re missing Erik’s main thesis, which is that most stories are about the damsel in distress, and that this is an aberration to the larger trend. Although statistics show that sex between mothers and sons happen pretty frequently (at least more than people think), though it is seldom discussed. Some cultures even have the mother be the first sexual partner for males to teach them sex.

My statement was inspired by Eriks post but independent of Eriks angle. His angle to the myths is not identical to the myth-structure itself. That structure, in as far if there is a general one, is much larger than ‘damsel in distress’. Often that is a mere side issue, or a modern take.

What really matters, though, is not a discussion about whether this or that take is more academically valid, but the creation of a powerful take on the world through the eyes of the man who thereby is enabled to become a hero, which is to say, to not be insignificant and cowardly.

Curious. Which culture?

Sorry I didn’t let this thread come into refresh for a while. One of them is a Japanese culture… I don’t think there is a name for it, like “Cherokee”, but it is a culture in Japan.

For anyone interested, link to the free e-book download of the book, which delineates this concept further:

The problem with the Oedipus complex is that it posits passive parents, not that it says that the child has aggressive tendencies towards Dad or sexual feelings toward mom. I mean, well duh. Of course the kid has these things. The kid also has aggressive stuff aimed at mom. And more importantly the parents are already spewing out all sorts of messages and feelings towards the child. Fathers certainly have jealousies and competitiveness towards male children or any child. Often father’s were the center of attention, then they are not. Later the male child begins to shine, perhaps in ways the man wants to appreciated for and his jealousy and aggression get triggered. The problem with Freud’s O is that he oversimplified - though in his writing it is more complex than popular notions of it. He also was forced to deny that sexual abuse took place and this distorted many of his theories - see Masson’s Assault on Truth on how the medical profession shunned Freud until he recanted his position that sexual abuse was remotely common.

But the dismissal of what Freud is saying I cannot go along with. Many boys get romantic bonds with their mothers, hell she is the first female around and is very physical with them. And humans are competitive and Dad is the first male around.

I see nothing in my experience of other men - and when they were boys to say that the problem with Freud’s O is that it is not common. The problem is that it oversimplifies and also makes the parents mere passive projection screens for the child, when in fact they are active in projecting on the child, involving the child in all their diverse emotional needs and idiocies.

Moved to Rant: OP wishes to revisit the subject in a new thread at later date.

Might as well move it back to the Philosophy section; I wanted it hidden from sight, as I was going to create a more detailed version. But since it’s still up, and people can make posts in it, might as well just put it back where it was.

Moved back as requested…