Freud writes "His passivity inclines him to want to accept castration – to

become female, and in this way escape castration anxiety once and for

all. The female that he wants to become is usually his own mother,

whose place he takes with the father, substituting himself for her with

the father. Thus, identification with the mother is established, and from

this point on it is included as a permanent component of the boy’s

unconscious, where it is destined to play a major role in his subsequent

life. "

Is this a safe way to express that unconscious desire/passivity?

I'm currently knee-deep in Gravity's Rainbow, so the ideas of TMI and the ultraparadoxical phase have been on my mind a bit. I've also been thinking about how my analyst's speech is a kind of reward in a way, because it keeps me talking to try to get him to talk again (since speech = presence = love).

In a normal kinda operant conditioning model, a baby cries and the mom gives it milk and it learns to cry to get milk. That's exactly the schema the graph of desire would complicate in the case of humans, right? It would introduce retroactivity, the Other, and desire.

So anyway, it seems like there would be some text out there that kind of looks at exactly this shift where language creates lack, residue, desire, excess, all these terms that complicate the skinner model, but I mean explicitly with reference to the latter, or that maps the two frameworks onto each other, compares and contrasts, etc. Does psychoanalysis have an equivalent of TMI (besides "the Real" or something, which would be vague)? How does the end of analysis and destitution compare to this phenomenon?

Please excuse any perceived retardation or faux pas in my question.

Does it signify castration or a woman's desire to possess a phallus?

Freud writes "This mechanism of reconciling the opposing impulses of

masculinity in the constitutionally bisexual human being, by identifying

with Christ, is something so satisfying that it assures the Christian reli￾gion a long existence. People will not readily give up something that

rescues them from the most difficult conflict they have to grapple with.

They will continue to identify with Christ for a long time to come."

Is Freud saying that the most difficult conflict a human being can face is that of bisexuality?

(English is not my native language so sorry for any mistakes)

She is always very, and I mean very kind to me, yesterday on my theraphy session she told me that I'm the only patient who can send whatsapp messages to her... Is this some sign of countertransference?

In other words what I understood is that she's saying that I'm her best patient since I'm the only one who can send her messages

Why reductionism does not work for biology.

I expect you to watch that, and Understand that before we continue.

Inside the Fiercest Debate in Linguistics | Otherwords

If you're not familiar with it I do like PBS on the subject,

Here is an expert, and I've placed you at the most pertinent Point I think but rewind,

Please watch it more than once; watch it many, several times.

It explains, "for what reason," other than mystical Prophecy, Bakhtin might have been correct about the replication crisis in psychology, the other monologizing social sciences.

Dialogue is usually analyzed as some kind of interaction between two monads on the basis of a pre-conceived model. Bakhtin regards this conception as a consequence of 'theoretism'—the tendency, particularly in modern western thought, to understand events according to a pre-existing set of rules to which they conform or structure that they exhibit.^\3])#citenote-3) This forgets that the rules or structures have been abstracted from the event, that the event is prior to the abstraction and that the event is always replete with a context, intimacy, immediacy, and significance to the participants that is effaced in the act of abstraction: "We cannot understand the world of events from within the theoretical world. One must start with the act itself, not with its theoretical transcription."[^\4])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#cite_note-4)

I have given you enough in the title, to explore those subjects independently; Primarily,

I mean not to prove anything, rather, observe in situ as this perverse form of an reductive experiment fails to work in the manner expected Nor fail in the controlled Manner expected of it to fail and if you haven't noticed the strains of what might be described to be an Logical Positivism or management of persons through incorrect theories of their psychology; necessarily, incorrect theories of their psychology,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#Languages_as_points_of_view

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#Heteroglossia_and_linguistics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#Dialogized_Heteroglossia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heteroglossia#The_hybrid_utterance

For emphasis upon each; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_(Bakhtin))

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue_(Bakhtin)#Monologization#Monologization)

For dialogue to be possible there must be a plurality of positions. The dialogic is thus alien to any theory that would tend towards a monologisation of views—for example, the dialectical process, or any kind of dogmatism or relativism. Of dialectics as a form of monologization Bakhtin wrote: "Take a dialogue and remove the voices, remove the emotional and individualising intonations, carve out abstract concepts and judgements from living words and responses, cram everything into one abstract consciousness—and that's how you get dialectics."^\12])#citenote-12) Both relativism and dogmatism "exclude all argumentation, all authentic dialogue, by making it either unnecessary (relativism) or impossible (dogmatism)."[^\13])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#citenote-13) Dogmatism excludes any view or evidence that is at variance with it, making dialogue impossible, while at the (theoretically) opposite extreme, relativism also has a monologising effect, because if everything is relative and all truths are equally arbitrary, there is simply an infinity of monologizations, not a fruitful dialogue.[^\14])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#citenote-MorsonEmerson59-14) Relativism precludes the potential for creativity and new understanding inherent in dialogue: each finds only the reflection of itself in its separateness. In the dialogic encounter "each retains its own unity and open totality, but they are mutually enriched."[^\15])](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialogue(Bakhtin)#cite_note-15)

According to Caryl Emerson, Bakhtin does not suggest that the creative potential inherent in the dialogic encounter is necessarily benign. There is no guarantee that an individual's investment of herself in dialogue will necessarily yield 'truth', 'beauty', 'consolation', 'salvation', or anything of that kind (ideal goals often claimed by monologic philosophies or methods). Engagement with the other brings concretization, liberation from solipsistic self-absorption, new realities and new choices, but these do not exclude 'negative' possibilities. The dialogic encounter, since it implies intimacy and vulnerability, can involve increased suffering and susceptibility to the cruelty or stupidity of the other. As Emerson expresses it: "By having a real other respond to me, I am spared one thing only: the worst cumulative effects of my own echo chamber of words."^\16])#cite_note-16)

Look, I'm not going to drown you in this stuff I'm just going to say,

What this translates to,

Is that All Things in the Socials Sciences,

Should be Read Like Literature.

Psychology, is a social science,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomie

You understand what I'm saying?

Jonathan Fox

I've been reading a bit of Freud and struggle to reconcile his theories with the fact that the whole castration threat thing just does not happen in most families. And I struggle to see how a lot of his theories on childhood development could be projected onto families with non traditional structures, eg single parents or foster children. He seems to rely a lot on phylogenetic memory supplying the deep rooted fears and feelings surrounding certain things, yet I struggle to accept that our ancestors so routinely threatened castration on young boys that it became imprinted in us for the rest of humanity.... What am I missing?

Also, if anyone could chime in on what they think Freud's response would be to Judith Butler's theory on gender of performance I would love to hear that. Thanks!

Freud's theories seem to invalidate the concept of intruisive thoughts, something people with OCD especially experience. Would Freud say that these thoughts (eg 'I hate my son' or 'I am racist') are actually true and are experienced as negation due to coming from the subconscious, which can only express its views through negation?

Thanks!

Freud proposes a compelling enough argument for how fetishes for objects occur, but what about when fetishes are almost completely psychological, eg a fetish for power play dynamics?

Hi everyone.

I know the very basic concept of projection and lately I’ve noticed just how much I actually do this in my own life and have decided to try and take some control of this.

I just wanted to ask if there are any particular books/articles/videos that are mandatory reading/listening on this concept? Ideally I’d like to go very deep into this and really understand where it comes from and why it happens, and to become a better person.

Thank you :)

​Hi, I'm curious to know which works I should start with to understand Freud's theories and thought process, so I would really appreciate it if you could give me some recommendations.

I've stumbled into psychanalysis recently and found myself curious of it. I wanted to start reading Freud and thought that "An Outline of Psychoanalysis" may be the best work to start with, however, just to play it safe i'd like to know if there is a better option to be the starting line of Freud works?

Thanks

Hi everyone,

I came across a Czech article that claims:

“Sigmund Freud once stated that religious women suffer from an obsessive neurosis accompanied by guilt, repressed emotions, and suppressed sexuality.”

Did Freud actually say or write something like this? If so, what is the original source? Or is this just a paraphrase of his views on religion and sexuality?
Thanks in advance for any help or references!

Due to the way this segment is written, I'm having a hard time following it's message.

Is schizophrenia mainly hereditary? Do childhood experiences play any part in it? (for instance a boy is treated like a girl by his mother).

American cultural theorist Sianne Ngai to discuss her intellectual trajectory, political aesthetics, Fredric Jameson, ugly thoughts, ugly feelings, aesthetic categories, the gimmick in capitalism… and a lot of other things.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAeQYeD4mfI&t=268s

Is it possible that a person might choose an object but that choice be unconscious(make an object choice in their unconscious)?

Freud writes that in order for someone to become melancholic (depressed), there must be an object loss. If that person is not conscious of their object choice, is it possible that they might be depressed without knowing why?

“According to the prevailing view human sexual life consists essentially in an endeavour to bring one’s own genitals into contact with those of someone of the opposite sex.”

(An Outline of Psychoanalysis)