The Flaws of Sigmund Freud

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sat May 20, 2006 10:39 am

cosmic prostitute:It appears the more wise one becomes, the greater conviction one has that there is only one way to live.

suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.

Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.

That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sat May 20, 2006 11:01 am

Suergaz wrote:

That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.

Agreed. But my point is that a wise person realizes that there is not an infinite amount of feasible options that they have to choose from, the gate through heaven is very narrow.

However as I was saying to Jason, Because your circumstances/conditioning/personality/environment are different than mine, the end result is that both our forms are unique, but fundamentally we are living our lives quite similar.

What I find interesting is that because the universe is infinite the number of unique individuals created has no limit. Thinking about this makes one feel rather small, infinitely small and unimportant.

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sat May 20, 2006 11:21 am

suergaz: That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.

Cos: Agreed. But my point is that a wise person realizes that there is not an infinite amount of feasible options that they have to choose from, the gate through heaven is very narrow.

Sure. In one way, the point of everything I've so far written in this thread was to encourage lingual rigour, as opposed to pedantry.

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sat May 20, 2006 12:04 pm

suergaz wrote:

Sure. In one way, the point of everything I've so far written in this thread was to encourage lingual rigour, as opposed to pedantry.

Yes, I noticed that many of our statements were both true based the paradoxical nature of truth.

You say self, I say no self.
No self = self.

You say tomato and I say tomato.

At the end of the day, its wise to see the fact that we are just throwing around words here.

The signifier is not the signified.

PS: I still donâ€™t like the word commander though, but perhaps it is my conditioning. You wouldnâ€™t believe the amount of war movies I had to sit through as a kid with my father.

Real father/son bonding time. If I ever have to watch another war movie with good guys and bad guys, I think Iâ€™m gonna commit suicide.

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Sat May 20, 2006 1:19 pm

Suergaz wrote:

In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.

Jason wrote:

On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.

The Universe is infinite, so there is infinite possibility. We can never know all the causes that bring us into being, but we can at least know that we are caused. Understanding that you are caused and therefore do not have inherent existence means that you also understand that there is no such thing as Free Will, because â€˜choicesâ€™ are also caused. Therefore, as you say Jason, the only way you can live your life is â€œthe way you live itâ€ â€“ at the whim of the Infinite.

â€œThe LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.â€ Job 1:21

Sue

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sat May 20, 2006 2:24 pm

Sue:

Understanding that you are caused and therefore do not have inherent existence means that you also understand that there is no such thing as Free Will, because â€˜choicesâ€™ are also caused.

That all things are caused means all existence is inherent.

Leyla hasn't yet answered me, so perhaps you can since you seem to be a christian. What is it to be 'of the christ'?

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Sat May 20, 2006 4:08 pm

Suergaz wrote:

Sue: Understanding that you are caused and therefore do not have inherent existence means that you also understand that there is no such thing as Free Will, because â€˜choicesâ€™ are also caused.

That all things are caused means all existence is inherent.

How do you figure that?

For a thing to exist inherently it would have to be bounded in some way, but because all things are caused, there are no bounds to be found, as things have neither a beginning, nor an end.

Leyla hasn't yet answered me, so perhaps you can since you seem to be a christian. What is it to be 'of the christ'?

Leyla made it clear that to be â€œofâ€ Christ is very different from following blindly the Christ figure as most Christians do.

Leyla: A Christian is one who is of (the) "Christ."

To be "of" something is not the same as following it: which happens to be what most "Christians" think.

I canâ€™t say for sure what Leyla is thinking here, but it may be that she is talking about how a true Christian is one who knows God directly in the same way Jesus did.

Sue

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sat May 20, 2006 5:21 pm

sue wrote:

I canâ€™t say for sure what Leyla is thinking here, but it may be that she is talking about how a true Christian is one who knows God directly in the same way Jesus did.

Yes, that's right. In hindsight, I think the latter part of my sentence made the overall meaning rather ambiguous.

From the dictionary:

3 -- used as a function word to indicate the component material, parts, or elements or the contents <throne of gold> <cup of water>

NB: Some dictionaries are better than others. I think the "cup of water" example is incorrect for this definition of "of." The same dictionary provides another more appropriate definition, as follows:

4 a -- used as a function word to indicate the whole that includes the part denoted by the preceding word <most of the army> b -- used as a function word to indicate a whole or quantity from which a part is removed or expended <gave of his time>

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sat May 20, 2006 5:33 pm

Steven,

I really have no idea what you are trying to say.

Freud's Id, after discovering the "terror of death" principle, began to unknowingly, and unbenevolently support his Superego.

The Id doesnâ€™t discover anything, nor does it benevolently or unbenevolently, knowingly or unknowingly â€œsupportâ€ anything: it is not the Ego or the Superego. The Id comprises what Freud has called the death and pleasure drives/principles/instincts/wishes. The Ego is that aspect of human which develops from a speck as a baby (which could be said to be â€œpureâ€ Id) through physical sensation/s and identifies objects to satisfy desire (motivated initially by the Id drives, of course) until it meets with opposition in the real (objective) world. Then, voila, Superego, which could rightly be called â€œsocial conscience.â€

If Freud has done anything with this so-called â€œprimary problem of ego mastery in humansâ€ (and Iâ€™d like to see anyone demonstrate logically or empirically the existence of an ego in animals on the same or similar order of magnitude as man) -- the terror of death -- he has, in fact, â€œmastered it egoisticallyâ€; his own questioned need for analysis notwithstanding.

Insofar as â€œbasic repressionsâ€ go, who but a creationist would consider such an idea -- a primary/first cause?

Which brings me to something Freud had to say on the subject of science and religion:

It is a mistake to believe that a science consists in nothing but conclusively proved propositions, and it is unjust to demand that it should. It is a demand only made by those who feel a craving for authority in some form and a need to replace the religious catechism by something else, even if it be a scientific one. Science in its catechism has but few apodictic precepts; it consists mainly of statements which it has developed to varying degrees of probability. The capacity to be content with these approximations to certainty and the ability to carry on constructive work despite the lack of final confirmation are actually a mark of the scientific habit of mind.

Indeed, they were on a completely different page to Freud, in my view -- or, were they on the same page but just so egoistic that they couldnâ€˜t see it?

His conception of the "death principle" as the one salvation of humanity, wrecked havoc upon his transconfigured Superego -- producing a deep chasm, and forcing the need for repression.

Itâ€™s a hypothesis -- and a very influential one, at that. Why else would you be using his terminology to describe his faults.

The ego that produced the principle, lead Freud to deny his attachment to the immortality of the idea. Ironically, subjugating him to the very thing he set out to abolish.

Immortality of the idea? What do you mean?

The issue is not that Freud was attached to his libidinal theory -- he just saw and scientifically explored a marked difference between humans and animals: much deeper than the likes of a cosmic_prostitute can fathom (so ironic). But, you have to look deeper into Freud to see it.

Such a turn-off to consider a drive/desire to fuck your mother or father, ainâ€™t it? Thatâ€™s about the general level of understanding and extent of interest in Freud -- never mind the fact that since time immemorial humans have been the only ones to verbalise things such as this for analysis.

Therapy is therapy. Absolute truth is absolute truth.

PS: the correct spelling for â€œgrammerâ€ is â€œgrammar.â€ (I had a very healthy anal [power] stage.)

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sat May 20, 2006 6:46 pm

Sue: Understanding that you are caused and therefore do not have inherent existence means that you also understand that there is no such thing as Free Will, because â€˜choicesâ€™ are also caused.

suergaz: That all things are caused means all existence is inherent.

Sue:How do you figure that?
For a thing to exist inherently it would have to be bounded in some way, but because all things are caused, there are no bounds to be found, as things have neither a beginning, nor an end.

For a thing to exist inherently, it only has to exist. All things are caused, but things have the bounds that make them 'things' within boundlessness.
There are beginnings and ends within infinity.

suergaz: Leyla hasn't yet answered me, so perhaps you can since you seem to be a christian. What is it to be 'of the christ'?

Sue:Leyla made it clear that to be â€œofâ€ Christ is very different from following blindly the Christ figure as most Christians do. [
Quote:
Leyla: A Christian is one who is of (the) "Christ."

To be "of" something is not the same as following it: which happens to be what most "Christians" think.

I canâ€™t say for sure what Leyla is thinking here, but it may be that she is talking about how a true Christian is one who knows God directly in the same way Jesus did.

I really am out in the cold here! You strange christian women! Do you know how Jesus smiled? Do you know how he laughed?

:D

Ryan Rudolph · Post by **Ryan Rudolph** » Sun May 21, 2006 12:42 pm

Leyla wrote:

The issue is not that Freud was attached to his libidinal theory -- he just saw and scientifically explored a marked difference between humans and animals: much deeper than the likes of a cosmic_prostitute can fathom (so ironic). But, you have to look deeper into Freud to see it.

Leyla, you still donâ€™t get my point. If you forget about all the spew that Freud coughed up during his lifetime, and simply observe how he lived his life then you will clearly see that he was unable to end the fear of deathâ€¦

Many of the psychologists in relationship to him such as Carl Jung and Otto Rank claim that he was a dreadful man to cooperate with because he always had be the leader, he had to be king Kong. Moreover he was severely emotionally attached to many of his theories and ideas.

This is the only point Iâ€™m making.

You cannot see this because you are blindly staring at his body of work as a means to understand the man â€œFreudâ€, but this will not fully help you.

Some of his observations were helpful, but overall there are holes everywhere in his work. He dissected and made divisions where he didnâ€™t need only as a means to cover up many areas that he did not totally understand.

zarathustra · Post by **zarathustra** » Sun May 21, 2006 1:11 pm

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/the_primative_madness/

Percy

sue hindmarsh · Post by **sue hindmarsh** » Sun May 21, 2006 1:47 pm

Suergaz wrote:

Sue: For a thing to exist inherently it would have to be bounded in some way, but because all things are caused, there are no bounds to be found, as things have neither a beginning, nor an end.

For a thing to exist inherently, it only has to exist. All things are caused, but things have the bounds that make them things' within boundlessness.
There are beginnings and ends within infinity.

You are being perverse in this matter. Youâ€™re not really interested in understanding Nature, youâ€™re just grasping at ways to make yourself comfortable. You are like the birds and the fish spoken of in the passage below: stuck in your own little world, unable to see the bigger picture.

"If those who lead you say to you, `See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, `It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you." Thomas: 3

* * *

Sue: â€¦it may be that she is talking about how a true Christian is one who knows God directly in the same way Jesus did.

Do you know how Jesus smiled? Do you know how he laughed?

I know what he smiled and laughed at: the absurdity of man's desire to remain blind, deaf and dumb.

There is no excuse for ignorance, for as Jesus says above: the Truth is everywhere. All you need do is open yourself up to it.

Sue

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Sun May 21, 2006 2:22 pm

Ryan wrote:

Leyla, you still donâ€™t get my point. If you forget about all the spew that Freud coughed up during his lifetime, and simply observe how he lived his life then you will clearly see that he was unable to end the fear of deathâ€¦

What a load of shit -- and a really poor excuse for your femininity. Your problem is, you don't have a point. You just don't like your understanding of Freud. So fucking what? I'm not interested in what you do and don't like!

Since you never knew Freud, I suppose you believe in time travel, as well as telepathy. You are telepathically connected to the dead men whose positions on Freud you have decided to uphold for God knows what reason -- apart from my supposed "in-aweness of his intellect." How do you know how he lived -- because Jung said so, or because you understand the man (and his works) himself?

Be a man and back up your gossip-mongering with more than how you "feel" about what he said.

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Sun May 21, 2006 2:52 pm

Sue: For a thing to exist inherently it would have to be bounded in some way, but because all things are caused, there are no bounds to be found, as things have neither a beginning, nor an end.

Suergaz:For a thing to exist inherently, it only has to exist. All things are caused, but things have the bounds that make them things' within boundlessness.
There are beginnings and ends within infinity.

Sue:You are being perverse in this matter. Youâ€™re not really interested in understanding Nature, youâ€™re just grasping at ways to make yourself comfortable. You are like the birds and the fish spoken of in the passage below: stuck in your own little world, unable to see the bigger picture.

"If those who lead you say to you, `See, the Kingdom is in the sky,' then the birds of the sky will precede you. If they say to you, `It is in the sea,' then the fish will precede you. Rather, the Kingdom is inside of you, and it is outside of you." Thomas: 3

There is nothing perverse in stating the truth. What is perverse is your 'telling' me what I am interested in.

"For me--how could there be an outside-of-me? There is no outside! But we forget that, when we hear music; how sweet it is, that we forget!"

-Zarathustra

Sue: â€¦it may be that she is talking about how a true Christian is one who knows God directly in the same way Jesus did.

Suergaz: Do you know how Jesus smiled? Do you know how he laughed?

Sue:I know what he smiled and laughed at: the absurdity of man's desire to remain blind, deaf and dumb.

There is no excuse for ignorance, for as Jesus says above: the Truth is everywhere. All you need do is open yourself up to it.

He smiled and laughed at mans absurdity out of love for man. Yes there is no excuse for ignorance.

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Sun May 21, 2006 10:11 pm

Jason wrote:On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.

cosmic_prostitute wrote: Like Dhodges has pointed out, free will is nonsense.

My comment was not intended to suggest that there is a lack of free-will. All I was saying was that there is only one way to live life, not an infinite number.

cosmic_prostitute wrote: The human body has tremendous restrictions and limitations, not to mention the environment where one is born and one intellectual disposition dictates how ones entire life will unfold. They make it sound like I could just dive off a cliff and fly if I wanted to; I think theyâ€™ve been watching too many disney movies.

Philosophy is about finding certainty to me. I think it is uncertain as to whether you could dive off a cliff and fly. So that idea is philosophically quite worthless as far as I am concerned. Basing the idea that free will does not exist on that idea is thus also rendered philosophically quite worthless.

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Sun May 21, 2006 10:34 pm

suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.

Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.

suergaz: That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.

If there is only one way to live life, doesn't that negate there being an infinite number of ways to live life?

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Mon May 22, 2006 12:20 am

suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.

Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.

sue hindmarsh wrote: The Universe is infinite, so there is infinite possibility.

The universe is infinite, but "possibility" is a particular thing/quality thus finite. There is only one infinite, or do you propose breaking it in two, with one part being simply "infinite" and the other part being "infinite possibility"? Perhaps we could break it into three parts and add infinite penguins to the collection?

sue hindmarsh wrote: We can never know all the causes that bring us into being, but we can at least know that we are caused.

Since every thing is an appearance of the moment, every thing is always known/perceived in full - thus all causes are known.

sue hindmarsh wrote:Understanding that you are caused and therefore do not have inherent existence means that you also understand that there is no such thing as Free Will, because â€˜choicesâ€™ are also caused.

Do you realize that my choices are responsible for causing the entire rest of the universe? Pretty powerful eh? Makes me all egotistical. I think I'll hang on to my self for the foreseeable future.

sue hindmarsh wrote:Therefore, as you say Jason, the only way you can live your life is â€œthe way you live itâ€ â€“ at the whim of the Infinite.

As with "possibility", "whim" is a finite quality, so it does not apply to the Infinite.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Mon May 22, 2006 12:31 am

zag:

I was never christened.

Then how can you possibly know how Jesus laughed or smiled.

You follow yourself whenever you lead yourself to something, I'm sure you know the expression is not to be taken literally. I like to run, but not in circles.

Yes, yes -- I know.

â€œOh my ears and whiskers! My watch is one day late!â€ stressed the rabbit, running a round in straight circles.

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Mon May 22, 2006 10:14 am

Jason:

suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.

Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.

suergaz: That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.

Jason:If there is only one way to live life, doesn't that negate there being an infinite number of ways to live life?

No, as there is only one way to live ones own life.

Leyla:

zag: I was never christened.

Leyla: Then how can you possibly know how Jesus laughed or smiled.

It must be in the water.

Leyla Shen · Post by **Leyla Shen** » Mon May 22, 2006 9:01 pm

Uh-huh, must be.

Jason · Post by **Jason** » Mon May 22, 2006 9:08 pm

suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.

Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.

suergaz: That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.

Jason:If there is only one way to live life, doesn't that negate there being an infinite number of ways to live life?

suergaz: No, as there is only one way to live ones own life.

So when you said there is an infinite number of ways to live, were you talking about an infinite number of people each living a single life?

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Mon May 22, 2006 9:09 pm

You try to make fun with a christian and they'll always think you're making fun of them. It's so damn annointing.

suergaz · Post by **suergaz** » Mon May 22, 2006 9:19 pm

Jason,

suergaz: In actuality, the wiser one becomes, the greater understanding one has that there is an infinite number of ways to live.

Jason: On the contrary, in actuality there is only one way you can live your life: exactly the way you live it.

suergaz: That one only lives one life, in exactly the way that one lives it, is no argument against the infinite.

Jason:If there is only one way to live life, doesn't that negate there being an infinite number of ways to live life?

suergaz: No, as there is only one way to live ones own life.

Jason: So when you said there is an infinite number of ways to live, were you talking about an infinite number of people each living a single life?

No. An infinite singularity to the ways of life.

Relentless707 · Post by **Relentless707** » Mon Jul 03, 2006 5:34 am

What I find interesting is that because the universe is infinite the number of unique individuals created has no limit. Thinking about this makes one feel rather small, infinitely small and unimportant.

Not entirely if you follow Chaos Theory with the Butterfly effect and so on, because while you may be infinitely small you may have far reaching impacts so from that, your infinitely small by size however not infinitely small in terms of impact upon life/the universe per se however the trouble with this is that, as in the title its a theory so the lack of empirical evidence makes it flop, so it really depends on your perception/belief, I think

Generally what I find is that people are afraid of believing in the supernatural because there has been so much stigma centered around it, and it has been associated with irrational thinking

Trouble with rationality is that we live in an irrational world and the path of rationality merely glosses over the unanswered questions which are in life, so it makes life more tolerable and '' understandable '' in a rational person because of this pseudo-belief, however entertaining such an idea like the supernatural could be targeted as illogical depending on your perception