Freud, Zizek, eros and thanatos

[Ian Livingston]

>Of course all descriptions are metaphors.  That is not a weakness.  It
>is the nature of thought.  So instead of saying how Freud/Lacan/Zizek
>are "bonkers," you are really only complaining that life is more
>complicated than the framework they use to describe their
>observations.  Of course it is, but do you have an alternative?

Actually, I am not complaining at all. I am only pointing out that
Freud's weakness on this issue is one of oversimplification, the old
reductio ad absurdum thing, and that Zizek is just plain confused when
he says that love is evil (combination is disintegration). And there
are many alternatives. Jung's theories of the complexity of the
individual are part of the exodus from Freud's camp. But the best I
have so far encountered is Wilber's four quandrant holon,
http://www.imprint.co.uk/Wilber.htm which is a synthesis of several
systems of psychology. It is still oversimplification, yes, but it
addresses more effectively the nature of things and how the mind works
with 'em, than does the main body of Freudian thought, as far as I
have read. If only Wilber had not gone so far overboard in his role as
"pandit", his legitimate points might get much more attention. As it
is, I sift through his work, just as I do with Freud, Jung, Baldwin,
Piaget and the rest. I discard none of them wholesale, but I do not
incline to suffer useless metaphors, such Zizek's interpretation of
Freud's reductio in this case.

I think Page hit it pretty well below.

I also think Pynchon seems aware of the weaknesses of Freudian thought.

Don't get me wrong about Freud. His was not bad as a first go at
formulating a western approach to psychology. We are late comers to
the field. Indians, Tibetans, and Chinese have studied psychology
assiduously for centuries, but failed to notice childhood
developmental processes. Freud, as far as I know, was the first to
delve methodically into that area. To admit he was often wrong is not
to impugn his character.

On Wed, Aug 11, 2010 at 7:21 AM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
> Semantics w/o any difference:  complicated, complex, variations.
>
> On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 5:54 PM, Page <page at quesnelbc.com> wrote:
>>
>> Life (the world) cannot be more complicated (complex) than a descriptive framework because complication (complexity) is a property of frameworks, not life or the world. Just as life is not written in English, it is neither complicated nor simple. Only our descriptions or descriptive frameworks are complicated or simple.
>>
>> Perhaps your point is more like the following?
>>
>> "As we all know but won't remember, any classificatory system is a net spread on the blessed manifold of the individual blinding us to not all but to too many of its variations and continuities."
>>
>>                       --John Wisdom, "Philosophy, Anxiety, and Novelty"
>>
>>
>> David Morris wrote:
>>
>>
>> Of course all descriptions are metaphors.  That is not a weakness.  It
>> is the nature of thought.  So instead of saying how Freud/Lacan/Zizek
>> are "bonkers," you are really only complaining that life is more
>> complicated than the framework they use to describe their
>> observations.  Of course it is, but do you have an alternative?
>>
>>
>>
>> No virus found in this outgoing message.
>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
>> Version: 9.0.851 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3062 - Release Date: 08/09/10 23:35:00
>>
>>
>



-- 
"liber enim librum aperit."