How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Can Anyone Other Than A Recluse   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Can Anyone Other Than A Recluse

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
rwood
Member Elite
since 02-29-2000
Posts 3797
Tennessee


75 posted 07-23-2008 10:47 AM       View Profile for rwood   Email rwood   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for rwood

Grinch and everyone,

i knew somebody would eventually slip in some Freud.

According to Mr. Freud, the Id:

quote:
is responsible for our basic drives such as food, sex, and aggressive impulses. It is amoral and egocentric, ruled by the pleasure–pain principle; it is without a sense of time, completely illogical, primarily sexual, infantile in its emotional development, and will not take "no" for an answer. It is regarded as the reservoir of the libido or "love energy".
wiki

If one personified the aspect of the Id, the above description would sound very much like a “Daily Double” clue to the questioning answer-

“Who is: Hot in Hollywood?” Alex.

The Ids could very much be among us and many whose ratings and popularity are boosted from such Idish behaviors, until they fall from some sort of displaced grace.

By Freudian structure, ALL Egos and Superegos are just Ids in disguise.

This is highly problematic in that if the Id is really only a part of the faceted human psyche-exposed, then someone needs to tell all the Egos on horseback or the Superegos who abolish/admonish the Ids, that they are, in essence, overriding and erasing part of themselves, making them more likely to try to do so to everyone else who remotely reminds them of that self.


unedited, and uncut, I am on this, because I must run now. Hack away me friends. It’s always a pleasure to be thinking with you.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


76 posted 07-23-2008 02:07 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

rwood,

quote:
i knew somebody would eventually slip in some Freud.


I was sort of quoting Freud in my earlier posts - sorry if that wasn’t clear.

quote:
This is highly problematic in that if the Id is really only a part of the faceted human psyche-exposed, then someone needs to tell all the Egos on horseback or the Superegos who abolish/admonish the Ids, that they are, in essence, overriding and erasing part of themselves, making them more likely to try to do so to everyone else who remotely reminds them of that self.


Luckily there are no personifications of the Super-Ego and no perfect representations of the ID either, at least none older than five years old. In anyone older than five the outward persona is a projection and construction of the Ego which sits in the middle deciding the best course of action.

It’s easier to understand if you think of it like this:

The Id is what you want to do
The Super-Ego is what you should do
And the Ego decides what you actually do.

If you were hungry and saw a roast chicken your Id would suggest eating it all, your Super-ego would suggest giving it to someone more hungry than yourself and the Ego would decide to share it.

If asked to choose one to be a representation of the true self I’ll still be sticking with the Id based, partly, on the fact that it’s the only one that  remains if you run my earlier thought experiment and also that the Id is the only one that  exists from birth and can possibly exist independent of the others in a state that can be described as the “self”.

[This message has been edited by Grinch (07-23-2008 04:02 PM).]

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


77 posted 07-23-2008 08:27 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



     Sort of.  When James Strachey put The Collected Works into English, he made some decisions that Bruno Bettelheim says weren't such good ones.  Whatever you think of Bettelheim as a psychoanalyst, his linguistic skills were excellent.  Among the things he pointed out was that Freud did not use the words Id, Ego, and Superego.  These were Latin inventions used by Strachey.  The words Freud used were Ich, Es, and Uberich, which really give much more of a sensation.  The I, The It, and The Over I.  They're really much more tactile, aren't they.  The word he used for Psyche wasn't "mind," as so many people say, but actually "Seele," or soul.

     The It, the Id, is by definition unconscious.  It starts off unconscious and it stays unconscious through the whole life.  At least as I understand the structural theory.

     The Ego is partly unconscious, and parts of it stay that way, but there is some commerce between the unconscious parts of the ego and the ego itself during altered states; and depending on the permiability of those particular ego boundaries.  There is also an unconscious part of the Superego.  Parts of the infantile superego can be quite savage indeed, especially those that identify with infantile phantasy (the spelling with the "ph" is intentional; this indicates a particular sort of material discussion by Kleinian theorists that goes a long way toward explaining the behavior of some serial killers.  Doesn't justify, simply explains).

     If Grinch (Lord help me for suggesting such a thing) wants to get some support for his point of view, he might have a look at Introduction To The Work of Melanie Klein by Hanna Segal.  Hopefully you will ignore the suggestion or open the the book, read two pages, and run off laughing hysterically.  It has good breasts and bad breasts and is very serious.  Heh Heh.

     And thank you, rwood, for your interesting comments.

Sincerely, BobK.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


78 posted 07-24-2008 01:22 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Bob:
quote:
"Anti-social" is not the same as to be alone."  Monks and nuns of whatever persuasion have spent considerable time "alone" without being anti-social.  "Anti-social" is commonly spoken of as behavior that is actively damaging to society, and as the product of personalities who generate this activity.  Seclusion can often be regenerative, refreshing and of spiritual value.  Jesus is reported to have benefited from it, as have lesser folk.


You'll get no argument from me about that.  Of course when I hear the term "recluse" I think not of the religiously motivated person (who typically feels that time away from a broader community will somehow benefit that community ... and who also lives in a religious community), but of the misogynist who only has ties with others because he or she must.

quote:
Should anybody doubt the validity of Sullivan's point of view, it would be instructive for them to see the number of times others have attributed to me the notion that there is no self.  This is something I do not believe.  But it is an example of how Sullivan suggests folks will try to attribute inappropriate qualities and thoughts to others.


But there are other possibilities here right?  You could have misunderstood Sullivan.  Or (as you yourself conceded the possibility) you could be inept at communicating it.  Or Sullivan's view may hold (despite his own perception or yours) genuine tension with believing in a true self outside of perception.  

Or we could just be stubborn or stupid.    


quote:
Perhaps eventually I will stop objecting to the false characterizations of my point of view.  Sullivan believes that the self is the sum of the views that other people hold of you.  This is a subtle point of view, easily oversimplified, easily disposed of when it is oversimplified.


But aren't the false characterizations merely our perceptions of you?  

(think about that a minute)


I do appreciate what you're saying.  I am not minimizing Sullivan's view since I am unfamiliar with it.  But as you have stated it, it seems to be true but incomplete.  I too believe that the views of others may hold true when it comes to the self.  But then again, so could self-perception.  Or they could (the most likely scenario) both be distorted, partly right and partly wrong.  If there is a divine perspective (or even objectivity involved with the self) then perceptions may be held as important but not all-encompassing.  


quote:
I disagree about the true self and the ideal self being the same thing.  There are all sorts of ideals, and while the sorts of ideals you hold might be terrific, not everybody holds with them.  People can get pretty weepy about ideals that would send many of us screaming from the room.  Some of them aren't too happy about me, amazing as that might sound.  Some aren't too happy about either of us.


But I wasn't making perceptions of the ideal (which may be particularly flawed in various degrees) out to be the ideal itself.  I merely mentioned that the fact that most people want to change into some nebulous "better person" they see dimly, suggests that there is something solid in the idea of trying to attain to being one's "true self".  Someone's answer to an equation might be wrong, but they are right in believing there to be an answer.    

    
quote:
I suggest to you that people struggle constantly to avoid to self that's there now when that's the self we have.  We wage a constant war against it instead of inhabiting it and feeling it and learning our way around it, as if there's always someplace better to be.  I think there's not.


But avoiding the nature of "self" would not be conducive to becoming one's true self now would it?    

There are still things we wage war against, not in the spirit of ignoring self, but of facing ourselves.  I'm not ignoring my car engine (or the distinct properties of it) when I change the oil or sparkplug wires.  Of course I would be a fool to try and force my gasoline engine to be happy with diesel fuel.  

Finding one's true nature certainly means accepting proper form.  But if one accepts form, then much has to be rejected in virtue of it.


Grinch:
quote:
There’s ... a problem that the Super-Ego option shares with the Ego option - they are both seemingly absent at birth, only forming during the socialisation stage of childhood development. Which would require the obvious assumption that children don't have a real "self" until they aquire one through social interaction.



As I suggested to Bob, what I was speaking of (which can of course be describe in Freudian terms) is the ideal self and the various imperfect perceptions of it.  Since I do not equate these two, I am not caught in the trap of having to think infants don't have real selves.  Probably where Freud and I differ is that for him the ideal (superego) seems wholly within and dependent upon the psyche in a self-referential way.  Whereas I think the "ideal" has another ontological basis than the human psyche.    


quote:
Which leaves the Id - instinct and urges that are clearly present from birth but later suppressed by the socially instigated and influenced Ego and Super-Ego.


The problem with equating the Id with self, is that there is whole spectrum of self-identity that the Id does not include.  Your very own reasoning about Freudian categories and abstract notions of "self" have nothing to do with the Id, since the Id has nothing to do with rationality.  Are we to conclude therefore that none of your arguments have anything to do with YOU?


Stephen
Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


79 posted 07-24-2008 04:14 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Stephen


     Very interesting conversation.  Sullivan himself is very difficult to read.  He writes poorly.  Leston Havens Has a book called Participant Observation that's brilliantly written, if you can find a library copy someplace.

     Sullivan isn't the only view, but he's the only completely social view that I find satisfying at this point.  And to see somebody who's good at using the style is jaw dropping in it's effect.  Sullivan was one of the few people who worked well with schizophrenics and other very crazy folks.  He simply sidestepped their expectations in ways that it would take too long to explain here, especially when the subject is "the Self" and not specifically Sullivan.

     Certainly the "false characterizations" are part of others' perception of me.  If you were to think on that comment of yours, you would actually have learned a bit about how I'm constructed, because it's right there.  You are seeing a paranoid trend, you're seeing me display it, and you're seeing the social interaction that creates and maintains it.  It's reasonably mild, and always has been, but it's always been there as well.  You can see similar displays of how folks are constructed in everybody's everyday conversation.  Unless you're doing therapy or there's some special call for the skill, you simply don't pay attention.  It's hard work keeping track of that stuff on an ongoing basis, you know.

     As for the possibility of there actually being an objective view of the self, I would have to say that it may theoretically be possible in the sense that I don't want to rule out the law of gravity being suspended in Denver for 45 minutes on a fine winter afternoon.  But I wouldn't want to put serious money on it.  Certainly not more than a quarter.  At a minimum you'd have to posit a provable supernatural point of view, and while you're a pushover, I know some people who aren't.  As long as it's people, there's some sort of bias.

quote:
Stephanos:
As I suggested to Bob, what I was speaking of (which can of course be describe in Freudian terms) is the ideal self and the various imperfect perceptions of it.  Since I do not equate these two, I am not caught in the trap of having to think infants don't have real selves.  Probably where Freud and I differ is that for him the ideal (superego) seems wholly within and dependent upon the psyche in a self-referential way.  Whereas I think the "ideal" has another ontological basis than the human psyche.    


     The child is always in a social world.  It starts out in an extraordinarily close mutually created mothering relationship and in, hopefully, a family system.  There is a self in formation from the beginning.  There isn't very much insulation on the neurons for a lot of connections to be made in a complex, adult fashion, but it's a primitive and very real self that develops in an unfolding social context.  The Superego, in Freud, is a complex psychic organ.  It has one section which Freud calls "the ego ideal."  There are lots of other parts.  I hate to tell you, Stephanos, but there have been millions and millions of folks since Thomas a Kempis who have had Christ as their ego ideal.  Even when it is not, the ego ideal is most often an external person that the ego/self feels they would like to model their life on.  Part of the deal is that it is an external person.  Typically this fills a sense of deep personal need.    

     As I pointed out in a post just above, the problem with identifying the Id with the self is the Self is conscious.  The Id, by definition, is unconscious and remains so throughout life.  I believe it is never conscious.  Freud seems to differ when he says, where Id was, there shall Ego be.  In this case he is talking about the recovery of organized themes from the Id with interpretations.  It is difficult to know where such material is coming from, Id or unconscious ego material or even unconscious superego material.  It is also unorganized except in terms of association.  Should you want actual evidence of material related to the self, you would need to do an analysis of the defenses, taking them in order and resolving them in order; and this is an ego analysis or what is usually called "Character Analysis."  It was developed in the late teens (1919 or so) by Wilhelm Reich.
While Character Analysis is still accepted in the analytic community, little if any of Reich's other work is.  

     There are parts of the ego and the superego that are unconscious as well, but the boundaries there are somewhat more permeable and there is some flow back and forth.  On the whole, I don't know of any analytic thinking that would attribute enough actual structure to the Id the believe that it is the template for the self.

     I would once again at the risk of being boring repeat my assertion that the infant's world is a social world from the moment of birth, and it is from that experience that I believe the experience of self comes.


Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


80 posted 07-24-2008 01:52 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Are we to conclude therefore that none of your arguments have anything to do with YOU?


I don’t think they have anything to do with my real self if that’s what you mean, my arguments are constructs of the Ego.

Bob,

quote:
The It, the Id, is by definition unconscious


It’s actually defined as preconscious Bob.

Conscious thoughts are those known and recognisable by the individual, unconscious thoughts are below the perceptual level - autonomic functions such as Sympathetic and Parasympathetic responses may fall into this class depending on who you ask. Sub-conscious thoughts are those suppressed from the conscious.

Preconscious thoughts are those formed outside the control of the conscious but are clearly accessible and recognisable by it.

The Id falls squarely into this category.

If the Id were wholly unconscious I wouldn’t know when I had the urge to do a bit of gardening.

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


81 posted 07-24-2008 03:35 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Grinch,

          You're talking about a different Freudian model, and are getting the two of them confused.  You were originally talking about the Structural Model, Id, Ego, Superego, which is as I described.  

     You've now conflated that with an earlier model, one which Freud used around the turn of the 19th Century, which used  three basic systems, The conscious system, The Preconscious System, and The Unconscious system.

     He was trying to get from a purely psychological model to something more in line with what he thought of as clinical neurology at that time.  He wrote a manuscript, I don't know if it's lost or suppressed, called Project for a Scientific Psychology which he was writing around the time of his The Interpretation of Dreams, in the late 1890's.

     If in fact you had intrusions of straight Id material into your daily life, you'd probably be having significant difficulty.  Only parts of the ego and superego are conscious.  The Id is foreign material, and organized differently than ego material.  It's what's called Primary Process material, and it's not coded in the kind of language most people speak or understand easily.  To somebody talking Primary Process, to say "My name is Jesus Christ," is a perfectly straightforward communication.  This is not how you tell yourself it's time to work in the garden.  I suspect you may not have heard many people with a thought disorder speak, or people with clang associations or flight of ideas.  These things are analogous to ruptures of consciousness, and Primary Process material comes through unfiltered.  The ego is not functional for one reason or another.  Grinch, an attempt to understand makes your brain hurt.

     Eugen Bleuler was a colleague of Jung and was for a time the director of the Great Psychiatric institute at (sp?) Burgholzli, in Switzerland.  He wrote a book on The Group of Schizophrenias that was published around 1900.  It's still a classic in it's field for its meticulous work in transcribing the speech and symptomology of some of his patients.  It's available in good libraries, and probably on interlibrary loan.  You should try reading some of the transcriptions and get a bit of the sense of the nature of primary process thinking.  Now this is distorted primary process thinking, schizophrenic primary process thinking, but it still moves with the characteristic rich interplay of association and symbol and image.  It is not immediately accessible. It needs interpretation before it can be translated into digital, linguistic form, even if some of the appears as words in the first place.

     One of the stories told about the famous Dr. Milton Ericksson, who was for some time the director of Worchester State Hospital in Massachusetts is the interchange he had with a schizophrenic man who insisted that he was, in fact, Jesus Christ.  Ericksson reportedly thought long and hard before he approached the guy, and when he did, he realized that his goal was going to be to get the patient back to work and on his way out of the hospital.  "So," said Errickson,"I hear you're a carpenter. . ."

Affectionately yours, BobK
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


82 posted 07-24-2008 04:19 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

I'm accumulating yet another long reading list here...

thanks guys (and gal)

Bob? I've never met a therapist so willing to chat up the subject, so I appreciate all of the references. (I find Reich particularly fascinating, but he's a topic unto himself--whomever he might have been.)

Grinch, it's always my pleasure to read a discussion that you are involved in--you enhance each subject with your indepth analyses.

I still don't know how to go about assessing my own identity, though.

I'm not sure if I wanna, either. But this is a great thread, for sure. So just me saying "thanks"! <--not actually me

But the idea of a bouncing blue ball representing me doth amuse me very much.

*chuckle*
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


83 posted 07-24-2008 05:12 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
You're talking about a different Freudian model, and are getting the two of them confused.


I’m not confusing them Bob - I’m using them to counter your use of them.

After all weren’t you the one who introduced the conflation:

quote:
The It, the Id, is by definition unconscious



Were you confused perhaps when you put the two together in the above statement?

Personally I think your use of the two models was legitimate (even though it was inaccurate), the two models aren’t mutually exclusive.

Can the Id be defined as instinctual thoughts and urges?

I maintain it can, you seem to deny it.

Are urges constructs of the unconscious yet accessible and knowable by the conscious process (preconscious)?

I maintain they are, you seem to maintain that they’re not and are part of the unconscious process.

Is that about right so far?


Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


84 posted 07-24-2008 05:34 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
I don’t think they have anything to do with my real self if that’s what you mean, my arguments are constructs of the Ego.


Well if I say that your proposed dichotomy is absurd, take comfort in the fact that I'm not really disagreeing with the real you ... only your silly ego.  

    

Odd for er .. you to have such a respect for the rational and the conscious but not a view of self that would include it.


Bob,

We've already discussed your reluctance to accept Divinity.  But I still don't understand how you could have a theory of self that is wholly subjective, if the subjective is only perceptual of some independent reality.  And I think it would have to be if we've ever been wrong about ourselves, or been misunderstood, misdiagnosed, etc ...  

To me if basing self in instinct (ala Grinch) is inadequate, then so is basing self in perception.  That's not to say that there isn't much to learn from the kind of theorizing you speak of.


Stephen
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


85 posted 07-24-2008 05:42 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
I still don't know how to go about assessing my own identity, though.


To all intents and purposes Karen you I don’t think you can - apart from in hindsight or through the opinion of others.

Even if you could it wouldn’t be a representation of your true self - your persona or identity is completely different from your true “self”.

My argument all along is that the purest essence of your true self can’t be used to define who you are. That’s because your true self was abandoned when you were about five in favour of a far more stable evolutionary strategy which amends your thought process and creates and projects a skewed representation of you that we call persona, or identity, or if you like, who you are.

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


86 posted 07-24-2008 05:51 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, someone experience trauma at that age?

Would that be cause for emotional arrestment, or is it possible to abandon the true self entirely?

Y'see doc, I have this friend...

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


87 posted 07-24-2008 05:52 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch:
quote:
My argument all along is that the purest essence of your true self can’t be used to define who you are.


Wouldn't it be synonymous to say ...

"The purest essence of your true self can't be used to define your true self?"

Do you have a criteria to judge what is purest, or is it simply that which comes first, or that which is unconscious?

quote:
That’s because your true self was abandoned when you were about five in favour of a far more stable evolutionary strategy which amends your thought process and creates and projects a skewed representation of you that we call persona, or identity, or if you like, who you are.


Though I don't accept your evolutionary paradigm, it is interesting to me that words like "stable" and "amends" raise the question of whether the abandoned or the attained should be considered more "true".

I seem to be somewhere in the middle of you and Bob, since my view would include both the perceptual and the instinctual, and yet reserve the right to be critical of both.

  
Stephen
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


88 posted 07-24-2008 07:18 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch

quote:
Let's suppose, for the sake of argument, someone experience trauma at that age?

Would that be cause for emotional arrestment, or is it possible to abandon the true self entirely?


Karen,

You’re making a quantum leap into a whole different subject by introducing the additional and separate process of emotional response. We aren’t due to get to that point until 2012.  

Off the top of my head though, and for what it’s worth, here’s what I think.

For the sake of argument let’s say that my silly ego is somewhere near right and that the true self is simply your instincts and urges. If that’s the case you can’t abandon your true self because you don’t control the production of your instincts and urges in the first place, the best you can ever do is control them through your ego with a little help from your super-ego.

In this scenario emotion plays what could be seen as a minor role, it’s the payback for your ego’s decisions:

You see a roast chicken your ego weighs the options and decides to share it, the emotions department audit your actions and release a dose of happy if it decides you made a good choice.

I said “what could be seen as a minor role” for a very good reason, once you’ve had a taste of happy you generally want more and your ego factors in the memory of acts that make you happy when it’s making future decisions. Which makes emotions a pretty powerful persuading factor.

So how would trauma affect the scenario.

Well the first effect it could have is to unbalance the emotion department so much that it screws up the audit. The result is a release of happy following an inappropriate decision or even a total reluctance to release happy under any circumstance.

The trauma could also affect either the Id the ego or the super-ego or all three causing an imbalance in the ego‘s ability to reach rational decisions. If the ego favours the super-ego the effects wouldn’t be too bad - you’d probably end up being another Mother Theresa or Gandi. If your Id was favoured however you’d be closer to Hannibal Lector.

I don’t believe however that the imbalance could ever be total, even in the most ardent psychopath or committed saint there’s always a portion of their persona that can be attributed to the influence of their opposite nature.

There’s a further complication though, the Id, Ego and Super-ego and even the department of emotions are all one and the same, think of it as a single entity with multiple personalities. In what most people regard as a well balanced individual all the parts are.. well.. for want of a better word, balanced. The differences between people are reflections of tiny imbalances between influencing parts.

All I’ve just said is my simple, and perhaps silly, opinion of course, arrived at after about five minutes thought between snatches of Grey’s Anatomy so I wouldn’t take it too seriously if I were you.

  
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


89 posted 07-24-2008 07:47 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Well now.

This is much food for thought (and ever more questions) but first and foremost I wanna know--

How'd you know (speaking of food)that I was planning on roasting chicken for supper?(Two small hens, actually.)

Um, I mean my friend was gonna roast chickens!

I think I'll just tell her to marinate the chickens, and cook the spaghetti instead. The food will come out better when she's less Hanniballish, anyhow.

Thank you, Grinch. *smoochies*

I'll tell her to not think so much in the meantime.

I need some time to um, digest this, anyhow. *laughing*

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


90 posted 07-24-2008 08:54 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Grinch,

          Id and It are the same word, one in Latin translated by James Strachey or A.A.Brill and focusing on a medicalized approach to psychoanalysis, and the other "The It" is a translation of the same word from the German by Bruno Bettelheim.  The German word is "Das Es," and it is the word that Freud uses to describe "the Id" in the Structural Model.

     The same differentiation is implied in German as it is in English, if I remember my long ago and far away German.  That is "I am myself, me,"  "It is something other and distinct from myself ; 'not me,' or foreign."  Das Uber Ich, which Strachey and Brill both translate into English as the medicalized and latinate "Superego," Bettelheim renders  roughly as "over-I," which renders the looming judgmental effect the word has in German.  The one German award that Freud got in his lifetime was The Goethe Award, and though you wouldn't know it from the quality of the translations, that award was for the quality of his writing.

     As you can see, it's unlikely that Freud would believe that the Id, which he did believe was a repository for all sorts of material—and which I do as well, by the way—would have much to do with formation of the self.  He thought of the Id as Other, and foreign, certainly that's the way he deals with it that way in the Structural Model, which is his late model of the psyche.  It is different in substance and intention from the hydraulic model which you mentioned earlier, and thought I was conflating with the structural model.  Elements of the structural model may be conscious or not.

     In my earlier posting I mentioned how the contents of the Id appear in the conscious mind as Primary Process material.  This is not material that can be easily mistaken for anything that is particularly comfy, and the sort of thinking process that runs it doesn't communicate well with conscious ego material.  It often gives the psychological impression of a person walking around impaled on a piece of a phone pole, that of a person invaded by foreign contents.  This is called ego-dystonic symptomology.  The symptoms feel foreign.  Often more disturbing are symptoms which seem to have been accepted by the person as simply part of the natural course of things, and appear a happy part of the days' normal schedule, get up, grab some coffee, go to work, come home, play with the kids, dismember a girl in the park, shower, make love to your wife, get up the next day and go through the whole daily grind one more darn time.
These symptoms are ego syntonic.  They aren't much basis for a self either.

     At the risk of boring you, I'll repeat my opinion here, that no child is born into anything other than a social environment.  The formation of a self is an interactional task, one accomplished between the child and the home environment.  The child raises the parents in many ways as much as the parents raise the child, and the self is a matter of life long growth and transformation.  Parents don't have to be great or even good.  All they need to be is good enough.  

     Grinch, I'm sorry if I'm being tiresome about this stuff.  I can't and won't say that you're wrong about the possibility you raise.  I'm not the good Lord, nor do I play one on T.V.  But what I'm saying about Freudian theory is pretty much on base.  Freud covers a lot of this stuff in his book The Ego and The Id, and he covers different pieces of it in different ways throughout the collected works.  He goes through three different theoretical models during his lifetime, and they're all pretty decent, but they're probably not as useful as the current theoretical models if you're looking for accuracy.  The current models are usually much more interpersonal. We need to account for the fact that humans are ecological beasts in a psychological sense as much as any other, and that while much of what goes on in a person's life is personal, much also is ecological and needs to be understood from the whole of that dimension as well.  This doesn't make a real self less real, it makes us need to look at what defines it more inclusively.  That's my thoughts for now, at least. What about yours and others.  I tried to work other people's thoughts into this response, though I haven't singled people out by name.

Regards to everybody, though in the more and more interesting discussion.

     Oh, serenity,  I hope I haven't revealed any real trick of the tribe?  The therapist's union might hunt me down.  I'm not practicing right now, my most serene one.  And the informations there for all who have an interest.

BobK.

      
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


91 posted 07-24-2008 09:01 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Bob? It was an observation, not an accusation.

Paranoia is such a part of me that I own it as "Karenoia".

*shrug*

I like to think of it as anticipating possible complications. Or...hyper-awareness? *grins*

I find your willingness to talk refreshing.

(and waving at Stephen too...I didn't mean to leave you out, m'friend.)

Ya'll keep going. I'll ketchup.
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


92 posted 07-25-2008 02:17 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


Bob\Stephen,

I don’t know about you but I don’t think we’re getting anywhere in this discussion, which I think is a shame.

The options are to call it a day and agree to disagree and retire to our respective trenches, which normally happens at some point anyway. Or alternatively we can start again at the beginning and concentrate on trying to get at least some agreement on each part of the jigsaw one piece at a time.

If you agree I’ll meet you somewhere in no-mans-land - bring a ball.


Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


93 posted 07-25-2008 03:44 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Christmas Truce?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 12-31-2005
Posts 2710
Whoville


94 posted 07-25-2008 04:19 PM       View Profile for Grinch   Email Grinch   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Grinch


quote:
Christmas Truce?


Something like that.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


95 posted 07-25-2008 08:21 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Grinch, I know we have immense common ground too.  Is that as fun to discuss though?  



And I wouldn't mind discussing more with Bob but he keeps spelling his name backwards, and it quite annoys me.  


Hi, Karen.  I appreciate it.


Stephen
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


96 posted 07-25-2008 09:16 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

*laughing*

ohhhhhhhhh lawsy...

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


97 posted 07-26-2008 02:35 AM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



Dear Stephanos,

          You must be confusing me with my brother, boB, who's always been an annoying sort.  Or my dad, Pop, who can never get things remotely straight, or my depressing Prague cousin, Joseph K.

     Myself, I'm just plain Bob.

     Best to all, and to all a good night!  BK.
serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


98 posted 07-26-2008 03:55 PM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

Sheesh! KboB?

heh, heh?

Bob K
Member Elite
since 11-03-2007
Posts 3860


99 posted 07-26-2008 05:45 PM       View Profile for Bob K   Email Bob K   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Bob K



I know when I've been skewered!  I must take my place with the vegetables.  O woe is poor Mr boB.
 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Can Anyone Other Than A Recluse   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors