Homee-MailDocumentsPLANDéveloppement PersonnelEnglish
	QUICK, an answer

  

Daniel is an opponent to psychoanalysis (re Doc below). Richard intends to extend psychoanalysis towards collective psychology; he writes his conceptualization of how one might begin to accomplish this (re Doc below).    Myself, I have already make this extension, but my step is still in the time it takes to be acknowledged.    This is how I am in a position to explain what is different between Richard's conceptualization and mine, as well as to explain Daniel what psychoanalysis is working through.

We can start with Freud's graph, that he established when he first tackled the relationship between ego-analysis and collective psychology. Here is the graph (pic.01) that Freud draw in black, and with colors my reading: green is the exterior, blue the culture inasmuch our mind and body represent its object, and pink the Unconscious inasmuch it represents the psychic function of specific elements of society.

There are two notions that my conceptualization operates:
1)  The green and the pink are twice connected together: that are obviously connected by the blue in between them, but also they directly rejoin like East and West as the Right and Left on a map. Actually it is not because the world in round in this case, but because the Freudian universe is like a moebius coil - following Lacan's topology (see Schema R the blue stripe represents a moebius coil - hence the right and left extremities are reversed, opposed and the same).
2)  I make a distinction between the immobile blue objects (a series a coded elements) and the mobile blue objects: the mobile as the primary processes and/or objects for primary repression, the immobile as the secondary processes and/or objects for secondary repression (the former has been theorized by Verdiglione - as Semblant or meme - the latter by Sartre and Laing).

With this graph I can understand Richard when he writes: ...some idea entering into the mind from the external world has been internalized to the extent that it controls the mind and body.

From this point of view, from the internal to the external, the graph represents the externalization in a way that is culture, in the sense Richard writes: Culture is the externalization of our deepest unconscious fears and desires.
   This may be even clearer with colors - Culture is the externalization of our deepest unconscious  fears and desires - where the direct/Moebian link between fears, desires, and unconscious is expressed, in a way that their separation also makes sense.
   In order to find this sense in our experience, I have answered this question as to speak of "hegemony" is simultaneously to speak of "attachment", in identifying these fears and desires as the environment - thus making the Freudian conceptualization an ecology (pic.02).
   It has requested a focus on the said unconscious as this internalization through forms, structures, as the ideology or institution that Richard mentions (as coming into being - that is Ego Ideal) especially when it lays a special product that is cybernetics. This product that is Artificial Intelligence ( I.A.)is now indicated as red in the second schema (as it was already indicated in older illustrations that I have published).

By consequences, on the basis of this conceptualization, I read that Richard intends to psycho-analyze society in term of uncovering the psychic function that lay in the cultural span. I pretend that something quite different has to be done inasmuch I represent the object of my psychoanalysis as nature - and this is how psychoanalysis comes to term with science. If I may further use colors, I may say that, in identifying psychoanalysis as ecology, I consider the whole natural span.

This happens to produce a kind of gay flag - why not; except if it lays way to an insult, censor, fag. It is even useful in addressing the question Daniel raises regarding education and repression in childhood.

In my opinion, Daniel is someone who knows psychoanalysis through its official representatives - being bold I would say during a time of Renaissance, who knows Jesus through the Inquisitors. However, he has to admit that psychoanalysis is a theory that acknowledges a phenomenon of resistance as part of the human development and thus, part of its own. Moreover, its own development helps understanding ours:

In Daniel question, feces and penis are two objects children are content to play with. Insofar the penis is surplus-valued by ulterior sexual and reproductive relationship, we can compare the former with a primary object and the latter with a secondary object for repression. Parents who would treat them equally would operate a repression as limiting psychoanalysis to a cultural span is a resistance in the development of psychoanalysis towards ecology. The child in this case would not be able to use the cultural command as a way both to mediate its social/sexual relationship and environmental/reproductive constrain. This child would see a super-ego - as Daniel says: an immense ego - which would represent a self-meaning society.
   Different would be a child whose parent makes sense with primal defenses which protects the child's life (one can be sure he will be grateful) and secondary set of laws (that will spare him ever being hateful).

DOCUMENTS

1) DANIEL
The question from the scientific archaeological/Egyptological group

2) RICHARD
The question of the thread was: psychoanalysis and science - "Why would one experience theorizing as "dangerous?"

 

Homee-MailDocumentsPLANDéveloppement PersonnelEnglish

© CYBEK 2000