|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 22, 2021 9:39:41 GMT
Who killed Freudian psychology? Or rather, who murdered it?
I am not going to endorse the philosophy of an atheist, unless
I am absolutely certain that what he has to offer is of
substantial value.
But it is abundantly clear that much is amiss. Yes, many have
taken Freudian ideas too far. Oedipus and Jim Morrison's
un-censored version of his song "The End" struck loathing into
many, who felt repelled by the conclusions of what I can only
call "The Freudian hyperbolic error". For those who do not know
what that means, the extremity of suggesting a son wants to kill
his father and sleep with his mother, is of course, unpalatable.
But given enough population-pressure, men will kill each other
and pathalogical rape will occur of every insidious variety.
But there is no reason to throw all his ideas out because some
notions have been taken too far. His structure of the mind into
Superego, ego and Id, is one of the most profound and fits quite
neatly into the ancient Vedic chakras. Here, wisdom is the super-ego
(highest chakra). Ego is intellect, communication and heart.
The Id represents the lowest three chakras: territory, sexuality,
and basic health.
But more importantly, the way mind is separated into conscious,
subconscious, and unconscious is the deepest of Freud's ideas.
Of course, it seems, that these ideas also originate with many of
the ancient mystic traditions.
So do we really need Freud, then?
Absolutely! Much of developmental psychology has its roots in
Freudian analysis. The core childhood phases of development,
being oral, anal, and phallic, should be obvious; but somehow
are not. This itself says everything about how such delicate ideas
are repressed into the unconscious. A mature mind should not shy
away from basic bodily function.
Our society has become increasingly anally-fixated, and also
anally retentive (not the same thing, actually quite opposite.)
This is obvious with the extent to which homosexuality is rife,
but also that such behaviour is typically associated with unconscious
guilt that then manifests as paranoid hypochondria and the fear
of even the air other people breathe out.
So devastating is this neuroses, and so widespread, that it has
resulted in violent murder, depriving people of income, incarcerating
them for no real reason (quarantine), and the utter quackery of
virology; which is little more than pathological paranoid
hypochondria itself. In fact, we are on the brink of world war 4
as Chinese communist culture is being forced on everyone out of
a fear of the very air we breathe.
The Jungian shadow now becomes prevalent. The squeeky-clean outer
appearance that China likes to project has a dark side. My prediction
is that Chinese economic growth is going to soon be found to have
a rotten underbelly no different to Auschwitz, with slave-labor
in the most appalling conditions, not seen since the Nazis.
World War 4 is around the corner.
Brace yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 23, 2021 16:35:09 GMT
I have a theory about it, but I guess if I told it to some other public they'd say it just another crazy conspiracy.
Anyway, I think the reason mainly in a) feminists, and b) postmodernists. The first ones hated Freud, because of those strict and rigorous positions about c) females which envy men, because the females don't have johnsons, and d) because he said "badly" about lesbians; I don't remember what exactly he said, but what he said was rationally hard to comprehend for lesbians, and to accept it. And the other ones were trying to e) get an intellectual revolucion to its end, and for that they plagued and brainwashing youth's minds, and also g) the postmodernists wanted to twist the traditional views, and to break the hell up the mind maps of thinking, etc, to erase any schemes and patterns. So, firstly they took Freud as a symbol of their program, and the predecessors of postmodernism like surrealists involved Freudian interpretations to everything of their art. And I think that these postmoderninsts lately discovered that Freud wasn't so liberal and wild as they were, but was quite conservative. It was a reason for Freud theory to be closed.
Moreover, more or less, but that theory (as for instance Russell confirms in his "Wise of the West") was close to scientifical. Freud wasn't mad or stupid. And the present education doesn't want to have any sane people. That's why involving Freud might be dangerous: what if lesbians and transgenders sooner find out that their sham views are totally fake? Since we live in totalitarian system elsewhere (thank for the web and some new devices) can we have some hope for something better?
P.S. Honestly, I wouldn't read Freud. I did, but no more. I'd rather read Jung. And even for them I almost have no time. Unfortunately.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 24, 2021 13:13:33 GMT
I have a theory about it, but I guess if I told it to some other public they'd say it just another crazy conspiracy. Anyway, I think the reason mainly in a) feminists, and b) postmodernists. The first ones hated Freud, because of those strict and rigorous positions about c) females which envy men, because the females don't have johnsons, and d) because he said "badly" about lesbians; I don't remember what exactly he said, but what he said was rationally hard to comprehend for lesbians, and to accept it. And the other ones were trying to e) get an intellectual revolucion to its end, and for that they plagued and brainwashing youth's minds, and also g) the postmodernists wanted to twist the traditional views, and to break the hell up the mind maps of thinking, etc, to erase any schemes and patterns. So, firstly they took Freud as a symbol of their program, and the predecessors of postmodernism like surrealists involved Freudian interpretations to everything of their art. And I think that these postmoderninsts lately discovered that Freud wasn't so liberal and wild as they were, but was quite conservative. It was a reason for Freud theory to be closed. Moreover, more or less, but that theory (as for instance Russell confirms in his "Wise of the West") was close to scientifical. Freud wasn't mad or stupid. And the present education doesn't want to have any sane people. That's why involving Freud might be dangerous: what if lesbians and transgenders sooner find out that their sham views are totally fake? Since we live in totalitarian system elsewhere (thank for the web and some new devices) can we have some hope for something better? P.S. Honestly, I wouldn't read Freud. I did, but no more. I'd rather read Jung. And even for them I almost have no time. Unfortunately. I reckon you could teach 90% of psychologists. Great detective work. You have found the murderess! They tried to reverse it by telling men that we have womb-envy. But that just made us laugh, so they became bitter and vindictive instead. And sneaky. Jung is great once one appreciates Freud, but for this childish society we live in, for them, they really need Freud. Alot! |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 24, 2021 13:44:28 GMT
I have a theory about it, but I guess if I told it to some other public they'd say it just another crazy conspiracy. Anyway, I think the reason mainly in a) feminists, and b) postmodernists. The first ones hated Freud, because of those strict and rigorous positions about c) females which envy men, because the females don't have johnsons, and d) because he said "badly" about lesbians; I don't remember what exactly he said, but what he said was rationally hard to comprehend for lesbians, and to accept it. And the other ones were trying to e) get an intellectual revolucion to its end, and for that they plagued and brainwashing youth's minds, and also g) the postmodernists wanted to twist the traditional views, and to break the hell up the mind maps of thinking, etc, to erase any schemes and patterns. So, firstly they took Freud as a symbol of their program, and the predecessors of postmodernism like surrealists involved Freudian interpretations to everything of their art. And I think that these postmoderninsts lately discovered that Freud wasn't so liberal and wild as they were, but was quite conservative. It was a reason for Freud theory to be closed. Moreover, more or less, but that theory (as for instance Russell confirms in his "Wise of the West") was close to scientifical. Freud wasn't mad or stupid. And the present education doesn't want to have any sane people. That's why involving Freud might be dangerous: what if lesbians and transgenders sooner find out that their sham views are totally fake? Since we live in totalitarian system elsewhere (thank for the web and some new devices) can we have some hope for something better? P.S. Honestly, I wouldn't read Freud. I did, but no more. I'd rather read Jung. And even for them I almost have no time. Unfortunately. I reckon you could teach 90% of psychologists. Great detective work. You have found the murderess! They tried to reverse it by telling men that we have womb-envy. But that just made us laugh, so they became bitter and vindictive instead. And sneaky. Jung is great once one appreciates Freud, but for this childish society we live in, for them, they really need Freud. Alot! Do agree about this, about how psychology can influence on this. I have to confess I had a dream when I was a child to become a detective. I also read one book of St. Petersburg detective (a cop with far competitions) ( One of Book's Series) and he also constantly said that his tricks with analyzing behaviour and psychology of crimes helped him a lot to success. By his work he jailed famous mafiosos of those times who mostly did their dirty jobs in Odessa and Rostov. But there's something that won't help me in this - it's a lack of courage of mine. I think that even cops should be more or less think like crimes and understand them. I'd say that the crimes mafiosos are also good (if not the best) psychologist. But they use their psychological influence into his immoral work. That's why for instance why some gypsies use methods of manipulations, and those who's working with in fraud or swingle (tax fraud, etc). And cops are their alter-egos: they should know hos crimes are thinking to comprehend and to predict their moves. I know it, and however as I said I don't have enough courage to perform it. Here's an example of PC game about using some psychology methods during the procedure of interrogation. |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 24, 2021 18:39:02 GMT
Eugene 2.0JC himself said: real courage is more a matter of reading the odds, and knowing that if you project fear, you make it easier to appear as an easy target how well do you handle dogs?
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 24, 2021 19:40:42 GMT
Eugene 2.0 JC himself said: real courage is more a matter of reading the odds, and knowing that if you project fear, you make it easier to appear as an easy target how well do you handle dogs? I had some dogs when I was younger. Now I haven't any. A year ago my dad's cat was gone. That was a really nice cat. His name was "Red". There was a couple of his photos I posted here about two years ago. If earlier I just played with dogs and that's all, now I have more sequenced and rigorous view of this matter. And honestly I wasn't going to pet a dog. It doesn't mean I don't love dogs, but... already in this year I was bitten TWICE by dogs. The last time (about three months ago) I was bitten by a German Shepherd. Sometimes people say that the dogs are smart, but their masters... are not always. That's why I'd rather take a gun next time to shock an animal. (By the way, some wild strangers are also needed to be shocked by a gun-protector. I mean there are some idiots or dumb persons who can be as dangerous as reservoir dogs.) |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 24, 2021 19:49:56 GMT
hmmmmm
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 25, 2021 12:29:16 GMT
Eugene 2.0The solution to your courage issue is clearly tied into your relationship with dogs. Dogs in many ways represent our symbolic relationship with our own animal instincts, but more deeply our relationship with the animal instincts of other people. I am unsure if my solution is feasible for you now, but it can work wonders: Get a little puppy of your own. Not a little dog, but a young, full-sized dog. It is very difficult to do this if you adopt an adult animal, so it must be as young as possible. As you grow together, you will understand better how to relate to the animal instincts. I suggest a German Shepherd. These dogs can be very protective, that is why the get used to guard sheep. If it was naturally dangerous, it would eat the sheep rather than guard them. Border Collies are wonderful too. But most breeds that grow up to a good size will work. German Shepherds do have a bad reputation, and it is not hard to train most animals and people to be aggressive. But if you grow up together, it will always care for you. You will be able to see its natural courage, learn from that, and also get over your fears of other dogs as you acquire the social skills to control it with firm love. You will then easily handle other dogs too. And it will also simply protect you, which is a fair deal for both you and the mutt.
|
|
Triangle
Full Member
Posts: 356
Likes: 134
|
Post by Triangle on Jul 25, 2021 12:42:13 GMT
The freudian psychology is not "dead" but need a essential revision on his postulates. Because is no more functional. The theory only ilustrates the psychology of XX century.
Jung is ok but his theories will also need a revision in the future. The postulates of psychology in general are in this same pace.
|
|
