Penis size and women

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Mon Jan 02, 2006 9:09 am

The Symbolic Order

So, Lacan’s view is that the kid does an A=B thing in the final stages of The Imaginary. When he sees the image of his body in the mirror (A), he assumes it is self (B) and thus firmly establishes a self-other dichotomy that is the fundamental (deluded) basis upon which s/he enters The Symbolic Order.

The Imaginary and The Symbolic Order co-exist -- The Imaginary providing the (conceptual) structural possibility (referred to as “Other” -- capital “o”) of self and other/s and The Symbolic the complementary language: “I”, “you”, “us”.

The difference between Freud and Lacan’s stress on the unconscious (due, in fact, to the progression of knowledge in language and grammar) is further highlighted with respect to an observation of Freud’s 18-month old nephew. He’s sitting on the floor throwing a spool away and saying “gone,” then pulling it back and saying “here.” Freud concludes that he is “replaying separation anxiety” (from the mother) through this actions. Lacan, however, articulates it as both the entrance into The Symbolic and the basic structure of language itself. He posits that the spool serves as a little other (objet petite a) and that, through this action, the child recognises that others can disappear and reappear. Lacan insists that the child is primarily concerned with the idea of absence/loss/lack of the little other (objet petit a. This, as stated by Lacan, is the only new thing he has added to Freud.) This action demonstrates to the child unwholeness -- incompleteness. And hinged upon this is the whole purpose of language itself, which must assume that something is lacking to be of any use.

Hence, in The Symbolic, there is a structuring principle of Otherness -- a position to which all other elements relate. The position of the Other thus creates and sustains a never-ending Lack, called Desire by Lacan. Lacan says, “Desire is the desire to be the Other.“ Thus desire is not desire for an object and, as such, can never be fulfilled.

This position is also called, by Lacan, the Phallus (the place where there is no lack). With Freud’s description of the Oedipus Complex and Castration, the dude with the dick is The Father: The Lawmaker. Whereas penises belong to individual people, the Phallus belongs to the structure of language itself. Submission to the rules of language by both boys and girls is necessary to enter The Symbolic Order. It is these rules that Lacan calls The Law of the Father in order to tie the entry into The Symbolic into Freud’s Oedipus Complex and Castration.

So, The Real is the state of union with the mother’s body which must be broken up in order to enter “adulthood.” Then, in The Imaginary phase, the child begins to identify Otherness as a structuring principle and gets the idea of a misrecognised “self” based on the other in the mirror -- an image. This image sets your position up in The Symbolic Order -- where gender relations begin to play out based on the image “I” -- and you may now refer to yourself, in speech, as “I,” which stabilises all other words in terms of meaning since they are fixed against the structuring principle of the rules of language (Law).
How can a woman feel like she already has a dick?


It’s called metaphor. :)

When you speak in terms of what the penis represents (that which satisfies the Lack), as opposed to what it actually is, you speak in metaphor. Just like boys and girls alike can suffer penis envy, girls can have a penis. It’s not literally about the act of fucking, but the basis of Desire itself.

Granted, boys do have a dick which may give them the impression that with it they can fill the mother’s Lack (or any lack) -- but you can see, with a little thought and hopefully in light of some of the other ideas I‘ve written about here, the ways in which that idea becomes problematic.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Mon Jan 02, 2006 10:03 am

Leyla Shen wrote:It’s called metaphor. :)

When you speak in terms of what the penis represents (that which satisfies the Lack), as opposed to what it actually is, you speak in metaphor. Just like boys and girls alike can suffer penis envy, girls can have a penis. It’s not literally about the act of fucking, but the basis of Desire itself.
I do think Freud is currently undervalued. When the popular perception of his ideas went out of fashion over the last couple of decades a lot of people rejected Freud outright as a lunatic.

But I do find the whole "penis envy" language very weird.

Why does Freud think the penis symbolizes something that satisfies a lack? I have no idea.

We could equally say that a tit symbolizes something that satisfies a lack, or a nose, etc. It all seems like an unnecessary abstraction.

Weininger used to argue that the dog symbolizes the criminal, and some people think that was a bit too much of a stretch. But I Weininger's symbolizing is extremely mild compared to the whole "penis envy" thing.

I can relate to the idea of the dog "being" the criminal, since I have experienced this feeling, and the idea, very strongly myself many times throughout my life. But I have never had even the slightest inclination of envy for the penis - no more than envy for, say, the nose.

Regarding dogs, when I was about twenty I was walking home late one night (just after 12) when I saw a very large black dog walking steadily towards me along the same footpath - like he owned the whole place. He wasn't threatening, but was treating me like I wasn't even there. As he got closer, I saw that he had an entire loaf of fresh bread, unwrapped, clamped in his jaws. And there was a cloud of white light hovering above him. He walked straight past me without even looking at me, and continued into the distance for as far as I could see. Freaky.

Another time, I once woke from a nightmare growling like a dog, unable to speak or even form words.

During sex, some people start growling and barking uncontrollably.

So I can understand, "The dog symbolizes the criminal". I just can't relate to the penis thing to anywhere near the same degree.

In many regards, the penis appears to me to be a weakness and a liability, since it is largely exposed and unprotected, is susceptible to all kinds of diseases and infections, and is one of the most vulnerable points of the body in a fight. It can be perceived as a lack of security - a lack of control.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Mon Jan 02, 2006 11:29 pm

ksolway wrote:
But I do find the whole "penis envy" language very weird.

Why does Freud think the penis symbolizes something that satisfies a lack? I have no idea.

We could equally say that a tit symbolizes something that satisfies a lack, or a nose, etc. It all seems like an unnecessary abstraction.
I don’t think you were alone. Freud himself appears to have hit an impasse with the Oedipus myth from a different angle.

Firstly, it would be appropriate to point out that the idea of penis envy in males is not a concept Freud himself explicitly articulated. The notion of penis envy in Freud is strictly for females -- exactly because she realises that she does not have a physical penis and, the Father, representing The Law, does. He believed that girls had to switch from having the mother as the love object to having the father as the love object (as opposed to boys who maintain the mother as the love object and want to kill the father and take his place) and that at the age of around four, upon realising that she does not have a penis, the girl will blame the mother for that particular lack and for the subsequent loss of self-esteem. Penis envy is the counter-part for Castration. Jung took this idea and further drew upon another myth: the Electra Complex. So, when we couple an equivalent idea for female psychology with the one in Freud for males, we have boys who want to kill their fathers, and girls who want their mothers killed by their male siblings.

The impasse that Freud eventually encountered and found himself involved with had to do with the fact that the Oedipus myth does not explain why there is a prohibition of pleasure. He began to explore monotheism in an attempt to finalise his drive theory as it applied to civilisation and religion in the West in the attempt to answer the question, “What is the origin of the Superego?” Which, stripped of its complexity and the specific context of his work, boils down to the question, “What is the cause of this cause?”

As an atheist, he cannot resolve this question with an acceptance of (the Christian) God; yet, at the same time, he sees that civilisation grows on the basis of the law. It’s here that we see the basic, sweeping assumption at the basis of Freudian psychotherapy: that the law is necessary as a counter-measure against the fundamentally destructive character of human drives. Thus, implicit in the question regarding the origin of the law and the idea that human drives are fundamentally destructive also lies the assumption -- albeit not consciously realised -- of an inherent form of divine nature. So, for Freud apparently, the question, “What is it?” still remains.

The reason Lacan holds that there is nothing that a signifier ultimately refers to is because if there were, there would be no question -- no lack; no desire. An actual relationship between a signifier and the (a thing) signified would cement meaning.

A signifier (in the unconscious: Id, Superego) only has meaning in relation to other signifiers which it is not. Through this we can understand the function of free association and Freudian slips, for example, in psychoanalysis.

Applying this, then, to Freud’s question of the origin of the Law/Superego, Lacan concludes that the Oedipus myth functions as an explanation for the loss of The Real but there remains, nonetheless, a lack and the individual attempts once again to attain what cannot be attained.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:46 am

Leyla Shen wrote:The notion of penis envy in Freud is strictly for females -- exactly because she realises that she does not have a physical penis and, the Father, representing The Law, does.
I wonder whether he actually asked women whether they desired a penis, or whether he just made it up off the top of his head. I imagine the latter.

I think it's fine to make things up, since you can't trust people to tell you the truth if you ask them. But if you're going to make things up, then you'd better be right. And I doubt that Freud was right about this.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Tue Jan 03, 2006 3:16 pm

Well, I have seriously wondered what it might feel like to have a penis in one or two moments of my life. But, that's about it. I find some men's minds much more interesting than penises.

One thing which can be said of Freud is that his influence on society and, thus, philosophy has been far-reaching.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:04 pm

ksolway wrote:
Leyla Shen wrote:The notion of penis envy in Freud is strictly for females -- exactly because she realises that she does not have a physical penis and, the Father, representing The Law, does.
I wonder whether he actually asked women whether they desired a penis, or whether he just made it up off the top of his head. I imagine the latter.
This touches upon one important aspect from Freud's work, containing as new research element the therapeutic session 'on the sofa'. The client would reveal hidden drives and motivations during continuous delving into memories, random thoughts, feelings and sometimes dreams.

Nowadays the power of the therapist in subconsciously guiding and influencing his clients during these conversations is better known and any research leaning too much on such 'admissions' or recall is questioned (famous examples: alien abductions, satanic abuses, even sometimes false memories of incest).

Still, if the penis would be seen as a core symbol of masculinity, the 'urge toward the higher', a creative structuring force, then any female desire for 'having' the penis and what it stands for shouldn't be a real surprise.

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Tue Jan 03, 2006 8:35 pm

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Still, if the penis would be seen as a core symbol of masculinity
I think the core symbol of masculinity is abstraction (reason, science, invention, planning, etc). The penis doesn't even make it on the radar - not even to a woman, I suspect.

User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Post by Diebert van Rhijn » Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:03 pm

ksolway wrote: I think the core symbol of masculinity is abstraction (reason, science, invention, planning, etc). The penis doesn't even make it on the radar - not even to a woman, I suspect.
This looks like a logical error since abstraction cannot be seen as a symbol at all. Symbolizing, when seen as mental activity, is already a form of abstraction.

I'd rather say that masculinity leads to abstract truth as its highest expression; the penis head, the pyramid apex. Worth nothing on its own.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:12 am

Of course the obvious question is: how does the scrotum fit into all of this? Personally, I think it symbolizes attachment.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

ANATOMY IS DESTINY?

Post by Leyla Shen » Wed Jan 04, 2006 11:57 am

For all this to come about in the first place one must also misrecognise the “maternal body” (The Real, in Lacanian terms). The maternal body is in fact a composite thing: that is, it includes the thing birthed -- the child -- as well as the mother. The “maternal body,” thus defined, is not equivalent to the female body or any part thereof -- and, in that same way, the male body or any part thereof is not equivalent to the Phallus.

IF the wholeness (The Real) that the child is attempting to reunite with is represented as/with/by the female body alone, because of the nature of The Real (a place where there is no distinction between subject/object and, almost incidentally to the point in this context, no lack), then and only then can women become Woman, the Unfathomable: a symbol of mystery, purity, unconsciousness, other-wordliness et cetera.

I dunno, what does the penis really have to do with any of it beyond a biological man‘s desire to understand his own sexual drives and motives as well as his relationship to his mother through his father?

~

Jason, that question is not so obvious to me. Would you care to explain?

Sapka
Posts: 11
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 11:39 am
Location: Western Europe

Post by Sapka » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:29 pm

... in Lacanian terms...
Well, I confess I don't like Lacan.
I prefer this Irish priest.
Listen.

HAS ANYBODY SEEN MY COCK?

The priest in a small Irish village was very fond of the chickens he kept in
the hen house out the back of the parish rectory. He had a cock rooster and about ten hens. One Saturday night the cock rooster was missing and the priest suspected that was the time the cock fights occurred in the village.

So he decided to do something about it at church the next morning. At Mass, he asked the congregation, "Has anybody got a cock?" All the men stood up.

"No, No," he said, "that wasn't what I meant. Has anybody seen a cock?" All the women stood up.

"No, No," he said, "that wasn't what I meant. Has anybody seen a cock that doesn't belong to them?" Half the women stood up.

"No, No," he said, "that wasn't what I meant.

Has anybody seen my cock?" All the altar boys stood up.

User avatar
Jamesh
Posts: 1526
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:44 pm

Post by Jamesh » Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:52 pm

Jason, that question is not so obvious to me. Would you care to explain?

I'd say he was just stirring.

User avatar
sschaula
Posts: 1317
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 3:16 am
Location: USA
Contact:

Post by sschaula » Thu Jan 05, 2006 7:25 am

I was thinking since it's a piece of flesh going outward, a penis could be seen as something reaching out. And the vagina could be seen as something missing, or engulfing.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:14 am

Jason wrote:
DQ: Religion was very important for our evolution as a species, partly because it helped stop the human race remaining fixated on sexual matters, such as penis size. It gave the mind more freedom to explore the non-sexual side of life, which eventually led to the development of science, philosophy and wisdom.

J: That's an interesting idea. I've never really considered religion in that way before. I suppose living after the age of enlightement it is all too easy to see religion as an almost completely negative force on human development. I'm still not convinced though. Religion created its own share of new irrational and superstitious obsessions for people to spend their lives focused on. I suppose you could say that the obsessions were raised more toward the intellectual instead of the physical.

Yes, religion inspired the human race to formulate, and place importance upon, the great philosophic questions in life. That it ended up doing a poor job of answering them, creating wacky fantasies for people to believe in instead, didn't really matter as far as our past evolution as a species was concerned. It did its job successfully, which was to raise our sights.

I also think that religion, with its comforting fantasies, gave the human race enough psychological security to begin exploring knowledge seriously, firstly through philosophy and theology, and then through science. The development of modern science, for example, which emerged out of the Middle Ages, was made possible by the belief that nature's laws were in fact God's laws and that it was permissable to pursue science on the basis that it was taking the human race closer to God.

So, in effect, the belief in God has acted, and continues to act, as a set of crutches which will eventually enable the human race to intellectually stand on its own two feet.

But not all religions were anti-sex. The ancient Greeks and Romans may have been less sexually repressed by religion and yet they managed some impressive intellectual things.

The ancient Greeks were only in power for a few short decades before they were defeated and their civilization collapsed, while the Roman Empire went to decline as the culture became more decadant and hedonistic. There has never been a rampantly sexual culture which has lasted for very long.

-

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Thu Jan 05, 2006 8:46 am

Kevin Solway wrote:
I could be wrong, but I think the whole penis size issue is way overplayed.

Of course there's some genetic programming which makes women respond to the shape/image of a penis. But that's about it.

When you consider that women are sexual beings by nature, that their abstract powers are feeble, and that their lives are constantly governed by social status, it is only natural that penis size would be a big issue for women. Or at least it would be if men didn't continuously downplay it by hiding their penises and distracting women with other kinds of behaviour.

You can imagine what would happen if men did go around naked. Penises would constantly be in their field of view and would thus dominate their minds. The penis would quickly become a symbol of social status.

As things currently stand, I view the myth that men are obsessed with penis size as a kind of disembodied idea which is floating around in our culture all by itself. Men only take the idea seriously because they think women take it seriously, and women only take it seriously because they think other women do. It's one of those ideas that has snowballed along of its own accord without anyone really paying it that much attention.

I do think Freud is currently undervalued. When the popular perception of his ideas went out of fashion over the last couple of decades a lot of people rejected Freud outright as a lunatic.

But I do find the whole "penis envy" language very weird.

Why does Freud think the penis symbolizes something that satisfies a lack? I have no idea.
He may have been tapping into the truth that women have poor abstract abilities and tend to see things in a more physical way than men. The penis would thus become, for women, a tangible expression of masculinity.

Remember that in Freud's day, women were far more restricted in what they could do. Men were the ones swanning about the place, going on adventures and enjoying themselves, while the women were stuck at home doing domestic chores. Penis envy might well be just a form of "excitement envy".

-

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Thu Jan 05, 2006 11:41 am

David Quinn wrote:
He may have been tapping into the truth that women have poor abstract abilities and tend to see things in a more physical way than men. The penis would thus become, for women, a tangible expression of masculinity.
I doubt it. More credible, given Freud’s medical background, is the idea that Freud himself saw things in a “more physical way.” If your supposition here was of any merit, then you are saying that his psychotherapy was entirely developed with women in mind: for the benefit of women. Not only that, you are implying that he himself was unconscious of this truth of his own "womanly" psychology by the use of the term “tapping.“ You can’t have it both ways, David.

Penis envy is the “guaranteed,“ instinctual outcome for females based on a whole body of knowledge centred around the Oedipus Complex, Castration, and thus the penis as the Phallus for men and women. In my view, Lacan -- for one -- actually provided an abstract expression of Freud's work.

Indeed, the penis was a tangible expression of masculinity for Freud.
Remember that in Freud's day, women were far more restricted in what they could do. Men were the ones swanning about the place, going on adventures and enjoying themselves, while the women were stuck at home doing domestic chores. Penis envy might well be just a form of "excitement envy".
There was a great deal of sexual repression during Freud’s time and his investigation was spurred by and centred upon, obviously, that phenomenon. Every stage of human growth was thus scrutinised and defined in sexual terms -- implying that both men and women are sexual by nature.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:23 pm

Fair enough. I don't know much about Freud's ideas. Kevin suggests that he had some merit, as do you, and so I was trying to interpret the concept of "penis envy" in a way that is somehow connected to planet earth. I find it difficult to believe that a thinker of some merit, such as Freud, would bother himself with overly-theoretical concepts like the Oedipus complex.

-

User avatar
Kevin Solway
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 8:43 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by Kevin Solway » Thu Jan 05, 2006 4:43 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote:I find it difficult to believe that a thinker of some merit, such as Freud, would bother himself with overly-theoretical concepts like the Oedipus complex.
I think he was trying to solve all the problems of psychology once and for all, and got a bit too carried away.

A lot of his writing is quite sane.

For example, much of the following essay:
http://www.theabsolute.net/minefield/wo ... c489442835

On browsing the web, it looks like someone has made a web page out of my compilation:
http://activekarma.homeftp.net/karma/woman/

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:44 pm

He reminds me of Thor who -- after fearlessly slamming his hammer against a solid, dry earth -- creates a huge hole on the surface with cracks splitting and splintering away from the centre in all directions.

There are those who will occupy themselves with the centre, and those who will busy themselves following the cracks.

User avatar
DHodges
Posts: 1531
Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2002 8:20 pm
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Contact:

Freud

Post by DHodges » Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:25 am

DavidQuinn000 wrote: There has never been a rampantly sexual culture which has lasted for very long.
I haven't read all that much Freud, but a central idea in "Civilization and its Discontents" was that repression is a characteristic or civilization. In order to live in a civilization, humans must harness or subliumate their energies and focus them in "productive" ways, rather than following a more natural (or animal) course of seeking immediate gratification. The basis of civilization is delayed gratification, which means frustration in the short term. This is a large reason why people rebel against civilization.

Freud saw all creative energy as being essentially the same - expressions of the libido, so naturally his focus would be on sexual frustration. But a civilized person will only eat, shit, fuck, etc., when it is socially appropriate to do so, according to the rules of his society. If those rules are very restrictive and arbitrary, then the frustration will come out in other ways.

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Re: Freud

Post by Rhett » Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:03 pm

.
DHodges wrote: I haven't read all that much Freud, but a central idea in "Civilization and its Discontents" was that repression is a characteristic of civilization. In order to live in a civilization, humans must harness or subliumate their energies and focus them in "productive" ways, rather than following a more natural (or animal) course of seeking immediate gratification. The basis of civilization is delayed gratification, which means frustration in the short term. This is a large reason why people rebel against civilization.
This is well put. This dynamic is very applicable to my neighbours, for example. If only they could see they've already been given much by previous generations and are still currently being given much, they might be able to stem their urges and gain some opportunity for clarity. Hoping of course they use it to develop further, and so on.

.

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Fri Jan 06, 2006 1:27 pm

.
ksolway wrote: On browsing the web, it looks like someone has made a web page out of my compilation:

http://activekarma.homeftp.net/karma/woman/
The main picture is very appropriate . . . especially after finding that one cannot scroll down and see a head.

.

User avatar
Jason
Posts: 1312
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2005 1:02 am

Post by Jason » Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:44 pm

Jamesh wrote:Jason, that question is not so obvious to me. Would you care to explain?

I'd say he was just stirring.
Yeah I was stirring.

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:38 pm

Sorry. All this talk of penises and I seem to have lost my sense of humour. :)

User avatar
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Post by Leyla Shen » Fri Jan 06, 2006 9:45 pm

DHodges wrote:
I haven't read all that much Freud, but a central idea in "Civilization and its Discontents" was that repression is a characteristic or civilization. In order to live in a civilization, humans must harness or subliumate their energies and focus them in "productive" ways, rather than following a more natural (or animal) course of seeking immediate gratification. The basis of civilization is delayed gratification, which means frustration in the short term. This is a large reason why people rebel against civilization.
Well, yeah, it’s not quite so easy. He does not come from a particularly pro-civilisation position. Rather, he remains almost impartial -- tending more anti, in my opinion, from his vantage point than anything.

Freud explores many facets of society, civilisation and the individual. For instance, he has listed the same difficulties as have been noted on this forum: that those things through which men seek happiness (threefold -- body, external world, relationships) often (!) end up delivering suffering instead. So, when this happens, the individual either individuates, joins the community sharing some type/s of common goal/s, or acts on the the body (alcohol, meditation, drugs, are [sublimation of energies]) in order to relieve suffering. (All very straightforward.) He, too, laments that man -- in general and for the most part -- is not possessed of sufficient discipline to influence the psyche on a personal level.

Religion, therefore, was of particular interest to him. Holding that most men are seeking only to be happy (pleasure principle) he concludes that this is the main reason many men become involved in religion: it apparently offers the ultimate solution to suffering.

Another issue explored in respect to civilisation is that of the Superego (conscience, guilt). The initial development of the Superego is directly attributed to the Oedipus Complex (myth) by virtue of the remorse felt by the sons after their rebellion against authority: the killing of their father. Through this remorse, they internalise his authority and, despite the fact that he is dead, he thus continues to place demands on the individual. Freud, in a parallel vein, further postulates a collective Superego modelled around powerful heroes of the past and leaders of the present. Not to mention the death drive (aggressive instinct), which he sees as that drive opposed to the pleasure principle.

God, so much. Even just in contemplating the death drive and what happens to and with it in and through women and civilisation...

Post Reply