Sex in the Psyche - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
By Rich
#15085380
Potemkin wrote:Ah, you're a Jungian. That explains a lot. :p

While I'm a long time campaigner against the fetish of anti Nazism, Jung actually lived through the Nazis, a time and place where political obsession with the Nazis was actually sensible. And I have to say I find the perspicacity of his appraisal of the Nazis, deeply unimpressive. If you couldn't see through the Nazis bullshit, then I'm sorry but you really haven't got out of psychology 101. You could be a great physicist and be taken in by the Nazis, you can be a great general or a great proto - computer scientist and be taken in by the Nazis, but really if you couldn't take the measure of the Nazis, I fail to see how you could have anything worthy of study to say on psychology.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15085384
Rich wrote:While I'm a long time campaigner against the fetish of anti Nazism, Jung actually lived through the Nazis, a time and place where political obsession with the Nazis was actually sensible. And I have to say I find the perspicacity of his appraisal of the Nazis, deeply unimpressive. If you couldn't see through the Nazis bullshit, then I'm sorry but you really haven't got out of psychology 101. You could be a great physicist and be taken in by the Nazis, you can be a great general or a great proto - computer scientist and be taken in by the Nazis, but really if you couldn't take the measure of the Nazis, I fail to see how you could have anything worthy of study to say on psychology.

The problem was that Jung was a bit of a Nazi himself. It's therefore not really surprising that he didn't see anything wrong with them. Lol.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15085390
jakell wrote:Lacan's musings are very woolly, the least he could do is suggest a utility for positing that unconscious to be 'elsewhere', otherwise it just seems that he is introducing an unnecessary complexity for no apparent reason.

He tries to mollify this with "the psychic locality in question is not psychic, it is quite simply the symbolic dimension, which is of another order", but this doesn't look like a simplification to me - the introduction/invention of a new dimension that is external to the human mind and experience.

I’m trying to take ‘em on their terms which is difficult because it is an elaborate system. But the externality of the unconscious implied seems to be based on the emphasis of the social nature of language. Where there are effects of language which aren’t subject to the individuals psychology exactly as the unconscious is part of consciousness but is different from conscious awareness.
User avatar
By jakell
#15085417
Rich wrote:While I'm a long time campaigner against the fetish of anti Nazism, Jung actually lived through the Nazis, a time and place where political obsession with the Nazis was actually sensible. And I have to say I find the perspicacity of his appraisal of the Nazis, deeply unimpressive. If you couldn't see through the Nazis bullshit, then I'm sorry but you really haven't got out of psychology 101. You could be a great physicist and be taken in by the Nazis, you can be a great general or a great proto - computer scientist and be taken in by the Nazis, but really if you couldn't take the measure of the Nazis, I fail to see how you could have anything worthy of study to say on psychology.


Whilst I'm with you in that that this is a psychological disorder (although I would roll it onto more general social anxiety which tends to display itself as various moral panics), I usually lay the immediate blame for this on those who bring them to the conversation - and that seems to be you in this case.

Possibly you have an ongoing theme with Potemkin here, in which case it would have been an understandable slip.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15088630
I also like Lacans emphasis on humans entrance into language totally changing their sexuality such that it isn’t a strictly biological category.
https://cla.purdue.edu/academic/english/theory/psychoanalysis/lacandesire.html
GIVEN MAN'S RELIANCE ON LANGUAGE for entrance into the symbolic order (see the Lacan module on psychosexual development), it is not surprising that, according to Lacan, we are not even in control of our own desires since those desires are themselves as separated from our actual bodily needs as the phallus is separated from any biological penis. For this reason, Lacan suggests that, whereas the zero form of sexuality for animals is copulation, the zero form of sexuality for humans is masturbation. The act of sex for humans is so much caught up in our fantasies (our idealized images of both ourselves and our sexual partners) that it is ultimately narcissistic. As Lacan puts it, "That's what love is. It's one's own ego that one loves in love, one's own ego made real on the imaginary level" (Freud's Papers 142). Because we are working on the level of fantasy construction, it is quite easy for love to turn into disgust, for example when a lover is confronted with his love-object's body in all its materiality (moles, pimples, excretions, etc.), the sorts of things that would have no effect on animal copulation. By entering into the symbolic order (with its laws, conventions, and images for perfection), the human subject effectively divorces him/herself from the materiality of his/her bodily drives, which Lacan tends to distinguish with the term "jouissance."Note

https://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/works/needs.htm
But even here, and it is most obvious in the case of the programmer, they do not labour directly with Nature, but rather with the products of others, likewise produced as alien products. The skills the programmer acquires amount to accommodating herself to the demands of MicroSoft and assimilating its methods into her own way of working; likewise, the baker learns the principles of cooking not by gouging out witchetty grubs and baking them in an open fire, but by manipulating the properties of the products of highly developed industry. This is less obvious in the case of the prostitute, but the fact is that the sexuality of her customers is produced by modern society, particularly its movies and advertising in combination with the general sexual mores of society and she must adapt herself to this sexuality if she is to labour successfully.
By late
#15088633
Rich wrote:
While I'm a long time campaigner against the fetish of anti Nazism...



My father and stepdad both served in WW2 in Europe. My stepfather was one of the soldiers that liberated a death camp.

My next door friend, Hershey, when I was a kid, his parents were Holocaust Survivors.

It took me a long time to admit this, but America is a lot more susceptible to fascism than a country like Germany. A lot more...

So you can call opposition to fascism anything you want, I'm glad it's there.

Fascism is one of the great evils.

I agree with you about Jung.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15098329
I wonder about the ontology of the unconscious as a real nothingness.
Seeing this arise in different thinkers. Where the absences in things is as much of an essential feature in determining the nature of a thing as is its physical form, the nothingness is part of the form and function.

“Look at this window: it is nothing but a hole in the wall, but because of it the whole room is full of light. So when the faculties are empty, the heart is full of light.”
— Zhuangzi



[url]braungardt.trialectics.com/philosophy/kojeve-hole-and-ring/[/url]
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15098353
The sacred can only be experienced as a gap, a 'hole' in the continuum of the natural order of things. In the Torah, God can be heard but never seen; not even Moses could look upon the face of God. Yet it is this 'hole' in reality which gives that reality its structure and meaning and purpose, just as it is the 'holes' in our conscious behaviour (Freudian slips and the like) which reveal the presence of an unconscious mind which structures our consciousness. And what else is the experience of the divine but the voice of our unconscious 'calling' to us as God called to Samuel...?
User avatar
By annatar1914
#15098361
Potemkin wrote:The sacred can only be experienced as a gap, a 'hole' in the continuum of the natural order of things. In the Torah, God can be heard but never seen; not even Moses could look upon the face of God. Yet it is this 'hole' in reality which gives that reality its structure and meaning and purpose, just as it is the 'holes' in our conscious behaviour (Freudian slips and the like) which reveal the presence of an unconscious mind which structures our consciousness. And what else is the experience of the divine but the voice of our unconscious 'calling' to us as God called to Samuel...?


In Orthodox Christian mystical theology, there is the ''Nous'', the ''eyes of the heart'', which since the Fall is a semi-dormant part of ourself that is our connection to the Divine. We experience a ''hole'' because of the semi-dormant nature of the Nous clouded by the ''white noise'' interference of our disordered passions. But by recovering the use of the Nous, putting our passions and thus our external and internal reality in order, we can see and experience God within us, and see Him in His Creation.
User avatar
By Wellsy
#15098414
Potemkin wrote:The sacred can only be experienced as a gap, a 'hole' in the continuum of the natural order of things. In the Torah, God can be heard but never seen; not even Moses could look upon the face of God. Yet it is this 'hole' in reality which gives that reality its structure and meaning and purpose, just as it is the 'holes' in our conscious behaviour (Freudian slips and the like) which reveal the presence of an unconscious mind which structures our consciousness. And what else is the experience of the divine but the voice of our unconscious 'calling' to us as God called to Samuel...?

Then this gives me the impression of what I can only describe perhaps as a real illusion. Not an illusion that can be dispelled by that the experience of such somehow radically changes things but yet nothing is necessarily gained in the sense someone who purposely desires something exactly where there is nothing.
[url]braungardt.trialectics.com/projects/mysticism/thomas-merton/zen/[/url]
“Where there is carrion lying, meat-eating birds circle and descend. Life and death are two. The living attack the dead. to their own profit. The dead lose nothing by it. They gain too, by being disposed of. Or they seem to, if you must think in terms of gain and loss. Do you then approach the study of Zen with the idea that there is something to be gained by it? This question is not intended as an implicit accusation. But it is, nevertheless, a serious question. Where there is a lot fuss about ‘spirituality,’ ‘enlightenment’ or just ‘turning on,’ it is often because there are buzzards hovering around a corpse. This hovering. this circling, this descending, this celebration of victory, are not what is meant by the Study of Zen – even though they may be a highly useful exercise in other contexts. And they enrich the birds of appetite.
Zen enriches no one. There is no body to be found. The birds may come and circle for a while in the place where it is thought to be. But they soon go elsewhere. When they are gone, the ‘nothing,’ the ‘no-body’ that was there, suddenly appears. That is Zen. lt was there all the time but the scavengers missed it, because it was not their kind of prey.”

I suspect I’ll never undergo such an experience as I imagine there must be a kind of surrendering to such an experience and that is always a difficult thing to let go of attachments.
User avatar
By MistyTiger
#15098423
Unthinking Majority wrote:I always find it creepy how often people are attracted to people who are like their parent of the gender they're attracted to.


I do too. But we do admire what we see in our parents. I do not usually like guys who look like my father, fortunately. They usually look very different from him. I do like men who are nerdy, that is a key trait of my father.
User avatar
By Potemkin
#15098572
Wellsy wrote:Then this gives me the impression of what I can only describe perhaps as a real illusion. Not an illusion that can be dispelled by that the experience of such somehow radically changes things but yet nothing is necessarily gained in the sense someone who purposely desires something exactly where there is nothing.
[url]braungardt.trialectics.com/projects/mysticism/thomas-merton/zen/[/url]

I suspect I’ll never undergo such an experience as I imagine there must be a kind of surrendering to such an experience and that is always a difficult thing to let go of attachments.

The circling buzzards think they want to experience the divine, the numinous, but in fact they don't. They want to gain something - to 'gain' enlightenment or to 'gain' the odor of sanctity, so that other men might admire them. In fact, there is precisely nothing to be gained from the divine; to the circling buzzards it is therefore precisely nothing, a delusion of the 'losers' of this world. They eventually fly away in search of better prey, a more profitable feast. And I hope they find what they are searching for. Buzzards, after all, must eat. Lol.
Election 2020

The funniest political ad in human history: http[…]

Syrian war thread

My opposition for war on Syria is my oppositi[…]

Oxymoron you can scream anti-white racism all you[…]

How Putin plans to stay on

By the way, what I've been saying all this time in[…]