Diebert: The central idea of having unconscious aims and motivators belongs firmly to the realm of psychoanalysis and its legacy, which in itself became at the time a new religion with its holy texts and churches, 'good' news, dreams of salvation and inner circle mysteries and initiations. A typical post-Judeo one at that! Like the ancient pagan shamans, the professional and amateur psycho-analyst alike invoke, navigate or enact a landscape of myth, dream or technical terminology, often referring to places and states beyond our senses and memory to attempt to restore wellness or "soul", leading to some chimera of mental health.
Though I understand what you are saying, and where you wish to go with it, I would suggest some alternative views that, at least, are interesting: In the Gospels themselves, there is the narrative of the the strange man possessed by an unclean spirit named Legion. Resulting from his possession, he haunts all manner of strange places, does all manner of strange things, but then 'Legion' is 'cast out', and the man is restored to normalcy. I suggest that this exposes the sense of an underpinning which is the same as 'unconscious motivator', etc. When it comes to the Freudian revelation, I would suggest that it is a recognition of a similar structure of view, but the Freudian is projected through a more modern lens.
But what really matters in any of this, is the suggestion of the possibility that, in ourselves and in life, there is an overt sense and a covert sense. There is a surface reading, and there is a depth reading. Even your anaylsis is a depth reading, an insider's reading, the reading of an initiate. You see a covert truth in the structure and surface of things (in this case psychoanalical, etc.) and---quite similalry to David and Anders and Bob who have penetrated the True Meaning of these Gospels and make overt, declarative statements about what they mean, and what they don't mean---you are willing to share your depth-reading revelation.
All well and good. I am on-board with you. But really what interests me is our unavoidable desire and need to deeply divinate on all that enters our scope and our field---to divine is to use all one's skills and tools of perception to examine and extract sense and meaning from events, persons, speech, text, etc., indeed from life itself!
Diebert: A less religious and more truthful analysis of behavior lies in the simple idea of causality: actions driven by an untold amount of "motivators" ranging from genes, memes, plays, utter randomness, endless layers of camouflage, mirrors and projections, each with or without any goal. Some behavior might as pattern just exist and perpetuate solely for its own sake while fooling any onlooker into believing there's rhyme or reason to it, conjuring up the image of hiding somewhere in the realms of some "unconscious" or in guiding force or angels or demons. But this image is possible more often side-effect than cause.
I observe and consider the result of your depth-divination. I clap. But wait, hold on. 'A more truthful analysis', you say? Declarative statements about the same? I note that, with this, you are up on a similar sort of soap-box as Anders, David and Bob: you clearly distinguish truth and you insist on bringing it forward. I don't really have a problem with that, but I do note that you are doing, essentially, nothing different than any interpreter of texts. Interesting, but ideologically driven hermeneutics? And what God rules your hermeneutical project? To whom do you offer yajna?
As to the 'rhyme and reason' part: I have no problem, in fact, in declaring that we humans within our structure of consciousness, actively invent the story-lines by which we live. I like this idea because it is the ultimate plea of responsibility. And even if it were not true, it would likely be best if we chose to act as if it were true. But that is to maintain each foot in a very different territory, and to create an almost impossible balance.
Still, for you and for me and for all of us: we are utterly driven to engage in interpretation, to attempt to divine meaning, and to become the messengers of those divined meanings, the Heralds. And certainly among the present group. It is almost ridiculously evident.
Diebert: Ultimately life, being a variety of existence, is way more complex and undetermined. Naturally the degree of insight into ones own nature can vary, but this is never just about understanding the details of our preferences or vocabulary; a never ending Minotaur's labyrinth - but about the nature of what is common to all this variety in the first place.
(How many varieties are there? I ask.) I would imagine you mean infinitely more determined, therefore random, without 'meaning', and that in truth we attach meanings, pull them out of a hat as it were, paint them over the void? The issue is precisely 'the degree of insight into one's own nature', isn't it? Doesn't it all hinge on that: how this is defined from the start? So, who has set in motion your desire and need to interpret? to divinate? I have a feeling that we are all, more or less, parts and parcels of the same phenomenological structure in this.
