Let’s talk about Jung and his trauma after being excluded from Freud’s circumcised group of incestual, perverted “psychotherapists.” Wilhelm Fliess
What about his trauma…as a goy?
Let’s talk about what makes an adult man want to fuck his second cousin and his mother…
What about the cigar…is it always just a cigar?
Maybe a pipe is only a pipe.
I think you would like trauma to have some socialist meaning that fits into a vicyim mythology.
Here we are only interested in scientific psychology.
People that have a yearning to identify with a group, a mass, are rejecting themselves as an individual. Why? Maybe themselves as an individual involves pain as part of a package they would rather avoid.
But there is no avoiding pain. It comes out another way, under a different guise. Except that, now, since it’s divorced from reality as an egoic continuum, it is pathological.
Maybe they lack the strength, the constitution, the breeding, to sustain an individuality that includes traumatic pain. They would prefer to fantasize about jettisoning it.
Yes…and those desiring to distance themselves from categories are driven by reasoning…
One wonders what an individual man is without humanity?
Yes, pain and fear can come through a desire to fit in, or stand apart…through hate but also through love.
What is an American - Homo Americanus? Individuals.
What is Homo Sapient? Individuals belonging to a…drum roll…category…a collective…
What is Rex my puppy? An individual…canine.
If I name my pet goat Satyr, and notice his unique traits, his personality, his distinct qualities, is it an individual or an individual belonging to a species?
The may not need to universalize it, for our universe has already written the script!
As far as Nietzche , he was more of a poet, looking for a beautiful picture.
It was said of Dorian Grey, that his ideal beauty was groundless, endlessly re presenting art for art’s sake. Such ever returning image, does appeal only to self indulgence, a trait Wagner purloined off the creator of the , Gay science, not that such link was anything but a far flung drift of coincidence
I’m the guy who defended free-will, by the way…
If you are looking for sheeple…find them here. Plenty of them.
I take his word on it…he was a diagnostician. He was greater than Freud in psychology.
I don’t know there, Satyr. What would a man be without all his categories and dreams?
It’s not that you would or should block out 90% of the information. I am saying that what you think you are hearing in the other person may merely seem like what is going on. That the 90% unconscious holds for you also, so what you hear, when you are listening, may well be what some part of you, a part you are not aware of wants to hear.
And this may or may not related to the appeal of the psychoanalyst role in an online philosophy discussion.
Given the very issue I am raising, a within a day response is probably not going to convince me of much. I wanted you to mull that your explanation for why I find it creepy might not be because of what you suggest in the explanation. I think it has to do with the role taking.
'ago
I take his word on it…he was a diagnostician. He was greater than Freud in psychology.
/
That much perhaps can be said more of Dostoevsky than Freud even…
I’m not necessarily trying to impress you. There is a joy to be extracted from discussions with people above a certain level of intellect. Analogous to, though not the same as, a chess game or a fight. It’s not a desire to impress, it’s something else. The dispair I sense in your adventures with anew tells me that you understand exactly what I am talking about.
As to the 90%. Just like with the rational, egoic 10%, I never for a second assume I have it right. In fact, I rarely believe I even have clues for 3-5% of that 90. What I said is I am listening for it, and I am. To me, part of the joy of a discussion, with the 10 as well as the 90, is confirmation of any amount of it that I got right.
What is a Plutonic individual? It is someone who puts intention into the 90%, or is at least aware of its constant role in the game of human communication. Most people are not like this. Most people wear their emotional side, their hidden 90%, with complete unawarness, like a man walking around not even realizing he is naked. Then they are shocked when somebody makes reference to their nakedness. But they can just put on pants if they are so sensitive.
I don’t think I said that or thought you were trying to impress me.
I don’t feel despair there. I truly cannot believe someone can have such an amazing lack of self-insight and here I get to watch it in real time. There’s a part of me that understands people can manage this. They can completely avoid experiencing cognitive dissonance - or at least hide most of the signs of it online. There’s another part of me that cannot believe it.
I’ve even put directly contradictory quotes of his next to each other and…no acknowledgment.
I would truly like to have all my parts truly understand that this is possible, even though it takes a degree of cleverness to avoid admitting and I think experiencing his cognitive dissonance.
People can’t put their pants on. You can learn early on to have a good poker face. I used to have one, but the cost is enormous. I can put it on in critical situations, but to live like that, no.
You can go way beyond intent. We’re more than a century after Freud’s talking cure got rolling. We’ve got a lot of direct methods into the unconscious, which talking generally keeps at bay. The detective/client model of the psychoanalyst is to me swimming uphill.
