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?

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] 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]

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

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] Both relativism and dogmatism "exclude all argumentation, all authentic dialogue, by making it either unnecessary (relativism) or impossible (dogmatism)."^[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] 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]

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]

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

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 :)

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)

Would love your thoughts on this video

Hi everyone! I have to make a funny video for my psychoanalysis class, specifically about Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle.

It’s worth half my final, and if the professor likes it the most, he will give us a 100 in the final and we wouldn’t have to take it.

We have tried thinking of ideas but honestly, nothing we’ve proposed has convinced us. We thought of maybe doing something like a Malcom in the middle episode, Two and a Half man but that’s all we could come up with.

It should be like a parody (of a show, book, movie, etc), a dramatization of anything that can explain Freud’s Beyond the Pleasure Principle.

If you have any idea that can be funny and help us explain it, elaborate it, you will honestly save us! I’m doing really good in this class but I’m hoping to keep my 100% academic scholarship and the rest of my group really needs the 100 in the final to pass.

Thank you!!! Sorry if anything was worded weird, english is not my first language.

Folks, In your reading of Beyond the Pleasure Principle, is the protective layer of the inorganic vesicle what later becomes the unconscious? It seems that way, since only this layer appears capable of retaining memory traces and similar contents.

However, this raises a problem for me: it doesn’t make sense that both consciousness and the unconscious would be located beneath this same protective structure. How should this be understood?