–verb (used without object)
to pretend illness, esp. in order to shirk one's duty, avoid work, etc.
~~~~~~~
6 and final.
It is interesting that Freud was so cynical, though, as his theory, as we discussed in class, makes way for sympathy regarding humans—as in all endeavors, I think, more understanding is the basis for empathy, for the deterioration of judgment, and for mutual benefits. In the example mentioned above—if people were more aware of their inclination to fear the unknown, and where that fear comes from, they might be better able to overcome it. Their understandings of both themselves and the instinctual understandings they’ve already formed could be molded. This kind of self-reflection is key to true ethics and morality, and essential for maturity. It also helps us forgive one another when we act certain ways—trading vindictiveness for understanding.
Psychoanalysis is still important, whether for its modern manifestation (psychology) or even for its proliferated effect (the knowledge of the subconscious). Knowing that something underlies our conscious experience is common sense these days, and allows the individual to explore him or herself much more deeply than has even been possible before. The biggest mass-change from behind Freud to after him is the disbelief in the blank slate—that modern science commonly acknowledges the animality of humans, and everything that comes along with it. While we will still need plenty of talks about how those foundations play a role once the self encounters society, this is the most important place to start—understanding where it comes from.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Harridan
–noun
a scolding, vicious woman; hag; shrew.
~~~~~~~
5.
People we don’t yet understand and knowledge we haven’t yet gained is scarcely reasonable to fear in an intelligent, self-reflecting being, barring due cause (I’m not saying fear nothing—just have a thoughtful reason).
This is the genius that Freud began—tracing humans back to their origins, and finding a new and richer explanation for why they act the way they do. Undoubtedly most of us have felt uneasy around things that were unfamiliar, feared finding something we could not expect, and even, as Freud got correctly, felt strongly drawn to procreate and felt that influence many, many of our decisions (even if it’s wrapped up and inseparable from the need for love as well).
What I think Freud missed was the natural disposition more important—the need for security. The need for physical security is usually solved, but the need for emotional security is usually a very leaky pipe, and the solution for most of us is little more than scotch tape. We are all volatile bundles of both subconscious and conscious insecurity, often blanketed more than enough to allow the individual to function, but far from fulfilled.
Which is why, I think, many feel a sense of completeness in finding true love—the sharing of insecurity, the vulnerability, the altruism, the uncompromising compassion—these things amalgamate to solve, or at least, persistently and richly stave that leak. This is why the idea of Freud’s pansexuality is complicated—because security is juxtaposed with and among the need to procreate—for many conscious beings (humans, of course, perhaps other conscious beings would not do the same), love and sex are very closely related, as is relationship and child. The divide between love, procreation, personal security and natural inclination is small in modern society. Freud was wrong, in many cases, to draw behavior back to natural sexual disposition, but in many ways, I understand why he went wrong.
a scolding, vicious woman; hag; shrew.
~~~~~~~
5.
People we don’t yet understand and knowledge we haven’t yet gained is scarcely reasonable to fear in an intelligent, self-reflecting being, barring due cause (I’m not saying fear nothing—just have a thoughtful reason).
This is the genius that Freud began—tracing humans back to their origins, and finding a new and richer explanation for why they act the way they do. Undoubtedly most of us have felt uneasy around things that were unfamiliar, feared finding something we could not expect, and even, as Freud got correctly, felt strongly drawn to procreate and felt that influence many, many of our decisions (even if it’s wrapped up and inseparable from the need for love as well).
What I think Freud missed was the natural disposition more important—the need for security. The need for physical security is usually solved, but the need for emotional security is usually a very leaky pipe, and the solution for most of us is little more than scotch tape. We are all volatile bundles of both subconscious and conscious insecurity, often blanketed more than enough to allow the individual to function, but far from fulfilled.
Which is why, I think, many feel a sense of completeness in finding true love—the sharing of insecurity, the vulnerability, the altruism, the uncompromising compassion—these things amalgamate to solve, or at least, persistently and richly stave that leak. This is why the idea of Freud’s pansexuality is complicated—because security is juxtaposed with and among the need to procreate—for many conscious beings (humans, of course, perhaps other conscious beings would not do the same), love and sex are very closely related, as is relationship and child. The divide between love, procreation, personal security and natural inclination is small in modern society. Freud was wrong, in many cases, to draw behavior back to natural sexual disposition, but in many ways, I understand why he went wrong.
Vexillology
n
Definition: the study of flags
~~~~~~~
4.
In all animals sentient, there are two types of security necessary for survival: physical security, which is founded on healthy physiology and an ensconcing environment (or the facets necessary to navigate a harmful one); and mental/emotional security, which, through a combination of chemicals, programmed emotional benefits for performing activities that aid a creature’s survival and punishments for dangerous behavior (pleasure and pain), and the emotional responses incumbent in fear, stability, affection and loyalty, aid the creature in achieving a paragon model of survival. Survival is at the core of every creature including humans, and though our conscious minds have progressed beyond this simple model, we remain inextricably bound to it.
In animals, many of these instincts and functions work as they should: animals fear encountering unknown entities, fear night-time (unless they’re nocturnal) and many creatures maintain unchanging patterns that ensure survival. I see several correlations in humans: it is a natural inclination to fear the unknown, but why? It is not as if our conscious mind has derived, since birth, that the unknown always or even often leads to danger or tragedy—in fact, in many cases what we find is either benign or enriching to our experiences. Often times cultures will bond together and become wary when infiltrated by new people with different cultures and values—is this because the new cultures and ways of thinking are, indeed, dangerous to the individual or the community? Or is it possible that some part of this inclination is naturally derived?
I am suggested here, as an example, that our fear of the unknown, and of those whose traditions and manners differ from us is a legacy of survival programming. In the days when we were far less conscious and more animalistic, it is only reasonable that we would find (being creatures that are neither the biggest nor the strongest) a natural inclination toward fear of the unknown—to callous a traveler and too incautious an explorer would surely find him or herself dead. The conscious mind has developed much since then, but that programming—that association that the subconscious makes between the unknown and danger—is what causes our fear, not the actual unknown itself.
Definition: the study of flags
~~~~~~~
4.
In all animals sentient, there are two types of security necessary for survival: physical security, which is founded on healthy physiology and an ensconcing environment (or the facets necessary to navigate a harmful one); and mental/emotional security, which, through a combination of chemicals, programmed emotional benefits for performing activities that aid a creature’s survival and punishments for dangerous behavior (pleasure and pain), and the emotional responses incumbent in fear, stability, affection and loyalty, aid the creature in achieving a paragon model of survival. Survival is at the core of every creature including humans, and though our conscious minds have progressed beyond this simple model, we remain inextricably bound to it.
In animals, many of these instincts and functions work as they should: animals fear encountering unknown entities, fear night-time (unless they’re nocturnal) and many creatures maintain unchanging patterns that ensure survival. I see several correlations in humans: it is a natural inclination to fear the unknown, but why? It is not as if our conscious mind has derived, since birth, that the unknown always or even often leads to danger or tragedy—in fact, in many cases what we find is either benign or enriching to our experiences. Often times cultures will bond together and become wary when infiltrated by new people with different cultures and values—is this because the new cultures and ways of thinking are, indeed, dangerous to the individual or the community? Or is it possible that some part of this inclination is naturally derived?
I am suggested here, as an example, that our fear of the unknown, and of those whose traditions and manners differ from us is a legacy of survival programming. In the days when we were far less conscious and more animalistic, it is only reasonable that we would find (being creatures that are neither the biggest nor the strongest) a natural inclination toward fear of the unknown—to callous a traveler and too incautious an explorer would surely find him or herself dead. The conscious mind has developed much since then, but that programming—that association that the subconscious makes between the unknown and danger—is what causes our fear, not the actual unknown itself.
Friday, November 7, 2008
Insensate
–adjective
1. not endowed with sensation; inanimate: insensate stone.
2. without human feeling or sensitivity; cold; cruel; brutal.
3. without sense, understanding, or judgment; foolish.
~~~~~~~
3.
I have been working on a blog post for over a week now, and it is about time I started posting it--as each section feels completed I'll throw it up here. All of them follow one thought, I'll number them.
~~~~~~~
Freud was a brilliant man, and he hit the subconscious on the nose. Pinpointing our vigorous natural inclinations and tracking them retrograde; and patiently pursuing misunderstood actions back to these referents opens up not only a world of sympathy and understanding for each individual, but a path to better self-control and happiness. It is a pity he was unwilling to accept the contradictions of his peers and apprentices, who noticed his unusual and unnecessary emphasis on sexual origin, as until sex became a pervasive element of his theory, his findings were genius.
And they are genius—even though he miscalculated the line of reason where sex is concerned, I do not personally doubt that sex, lust and the emotional context it maintains is among the chief determinants of natural behavior. What I believe sits atop the pyramid, and what I mentioned as one of Freud’s mistakes, however, is the ideal of security.
1. not endowed with sensation; inanimate: insensate stone.
2. without human feeling or sensitivity; cold; cruel; brutal.
3. without sense, understanding, or judgment; foolish.
~~~~~~~
3.
I have been working on a blog post for over a week now, and it is about time I started posting it--as each section feels completed I'll throw it up here. All of them follow one thought, I'll number them.
~~~~~~~
Freud was a brilliant man, and he hit the subconscious on the nose. Pinpointing our vigorous natural inclinations and tracking them retrograde; and patiently pursuing misunderstood actions back to these referents opens up not only a world of sympathy and understanding for each individual, but a path to better self-control and happiness. It is a pity he was unwilling to accept the contradictions of his peers and apprentices, who noticed his unusual and unnecessary emphasis on sexual origin, as until sex became a pervasive element of his theory, his findings were genius.
And they are genius—even though he miscalculated the line of reason where sex is concerned, I do not personally doubt that sex, lust and the emotional context it maintains is among the chief determinants of natural behavior. What I believe sits atop the pyramid, and what I mentioned as one of Freud’s mistakes, however, is the ideal of security.
Cavil
–verb (used without object)
1. to raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily (usually fol. by at or about): He finds something to cavil at in everything I say.
–verb (used with object)
2. to oppose by inconsequential, frivolous, or sham objections: to cavil each item of a proposed agenda.
–noun
3. a trivial and annoying objection.
4. the raising of such objections.
~~~~~~~
2.
Procreation propels a species, not an individual (as a necessity—though plenty can be said about the benefits of having children). Our conscious definition of sex is muddled, though, very quickly bleeding into erstwhile seas: emotional security, affection, attrition, lust and, of course, childbearing itself.
While the first two (hunger, safety) are tended to with deliberation—satiated quickly, and only occasionally crossing into other experience—the third, for a sapient individual, is a mountain of implication.
In the above paragraphs I have noted, but left, one of what I believe to be Freud’s mistakes, and I’ll elaborate on it later.
I think Freud, having found this nucleus of human experience, sought to discover how prolific the sexual branch was in behavior. It took brilliance to hash out things that are now common sense—defining emotions differently from how their bearers understand them, finding root causes hidden even from the self—he discovered a place derived from our animalistic selves, a place not only in limited communication with the conscious mind, but further still serving as its Atlas. His ideas were occasionally fantastical (the stages of sexual development, the distinct trinity of the mind), but his discovery of the subconscious, and the lightning rod of sexual inclination (a rod which later psychologists replaced with other natural inclinations) were vital discoveries.
1. to raise irritating and trivial objections; find fault with unnecessarily (usually fol. by at or about): He finds something to cavil at in everything I say.
–verb (used with object)
2. to oppose by inconsequential, frivolous, or sham objections: to cavil each item of a proposed agenda.
–noun
3. a trivial and annoying objection.
4. the raising of such objections.
~~~~~~~
2.
Procreation propels a species, not an individual (as a necessity—though plenty can be said about the benefits of having children). Our conscious definition of sex is muddled, though, very quickly bleeding into erstwhile seas: emotional security, affection, attrition, lust and, of course, childbearing itself.
While the first two (hunger, safety) are tended to with deliberation—satiated quickly, and only occasionally crossing into other experience—the third, for a sapient individual, is a mountain of implication.
In the above paragraphs I have noted, but left, one of what I believe to be Freud’s mistakes, and I’ll elaborate on it later.
I think Freud, having found this nucleus of human experience, sought to discover how prolific the sexual branch was in behavior. It took brilliance to hash out things that are now common sense—defining emotions differently from how their bearers understand them, finding root causes hidden even from the self—he discovered a place derived from our animalistic selves, a place not only in limited communication with the conscious mind, but further still serving as its Atlas. His ideas were occasionally fantastical (the stages of sexual development, the distinct trinity of the mind), but his discovery of the subconscious, and the lightning rod of sexual inclination (a rod which later psychologists replaced with other natural inclinations) were vital discoveries.
Temerarious
–adjective
reckless; rash.
~~~~~~~
1.
I wonder what Sigmund Freud’s thought process entailed, uncovering and gradually coming to know the unconscious. I imagine it not far departed from our classroom discussions, where we allotted credence, at least in part, to the notion that humans have natural, genetic programming that affects behavior. As history has mostly subscribed to the mentioned “blank slate” theory, this theory must have been more cumbersome to maintain for Freud than our 21st century classroom, already dramatically influenced by his theories.
However, it is only a natural step, I think, to first believe in predisposition, and then determine its scientific roots. Freud was a realist—he wasn’t prepared to accept anything but what reason and experience would show him (although his extrapolated conclusions step outside the bounds of logic, I think). Without any social encouragement, there are only a small number of facets natural to humans that could be reasonably derived: safety, nourishment, and procreation (there are probably others, I’m being general).
Immediately the last stands out to me, as perhaps it did to Freud—the first two are natural prerogatives, necessary to sustain the individual and impossible to overcome—constant danger or malnourishment ends the individual. The third, however, is peculiar—as it serves the same preservative function, but is the only one not designated for the good of the self.
reckless; rash.
~~~~~~~
1.
I wonder what Sigmund Freud’s thought process entailed, uncovering and gradually coming to know the unconscious. I imagine it not far departed from our classroom discussions, where we allotted credence, at least in part, to the notion that humans have natural, genetic programming that affects behavior. As history has mostly subscribed to the mentioned “blank slate” theory, this theory must have been more cumbersome to maintain for Freud than our 21st century classroom, already dramatically influenced by his theories.
However, it is only a natural step, I think, to first believe in predisposition, and then determine its scientific roots. Freud was a realist—he wasn’t prepared to accept anything but what reason and experience would show him (although his extrapolated conclusions step outside the bounds of logic, I think). Without any social encouragement, there are only a small number of facets natural to humans that could be reasonably derived: safety, nourishment, and procreation (there are probably others, I’m being general).
Immediately the last stands out to me, as perhaps it did to Freud—the first two are natural prerogatives, necessary to sustain the individual and impossible to overcome—constant danger or malnourishment ends the individual. The third, however, is peculiar—as it serves the same preservative function, but is the only one not designated for the good of the self.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
