It is surprising that Freud failed to recognize that apart from the tendency to merge, Eros, there is a tendency to separate, which would make the matter much easy to understand.
Then he introduces the idea of the death instinct (or the instinct of destruction) which seeks to 'dissolve those units and to bring them back to their primaeval, inorganic state' and from which the instinct of aggression eventually derives: That is to say, as well as Eros there was an instinct of death. The phenomena of life could be explained from the concurrent or mutually opposing action of these two instincts (Chapter VI). Thus, there appears to be another struggle: between Eros and the death instinct. For Freud the death instinct is libidinal too so the id turns out to be a source of two such contrasting energies.
Freud believes that this struggle between Eros and the death instinct is a manifestation of organic life in general, and it is repeated on different levels - form the development of the individual to the cultural process that involves in humanity. He also believes that if the innate tendency to aggression (the derivative and chief representative of the death instinct) had not been blocked by Eros, there would be an inevitable disaster. And in doing this job, Eros libidinally binds together 'single human individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind. Why this has to happen, we do not know; the work of Eros is precisely this.' - Chapter VI - this is the meaning of the evolution of culture according to Freud.
I have already noticed that Freud believes that if the innate tendency for aggression had not been blocked by Eros, there would be an inevitable disaster, but it is not just a question of replacing aggression with love - see Chapter VII - innate aggressiveness can not just disappear. Instead, the presence of love causes ambivalence of feeling towards the person aggression has been directed (originally it was father), love and hate at the same time, which causes remorse that further evolves into the sense of guilt - this is the role of love. The result is ever-increasing sense of guilt which Freud regards as the most important problem in the evolution of culture.
So far I mostly agree: I can just replace aggressiveness with the total negation (the immune system) initially directed outwards and then bent inwards. However, I think, Freud is missing something. I believe that there's a difference between aggressiveness and self-defense; of course, a very vague difference, but it exists. Zen practice - i.e. the practice of perceiving yourself not as a member of a group but as an individual - has allowed me to notice one peculiarity: One can attack others only as a member of a group, on behalf of this group (in most cases it is just an imaginary group). As an individual, one can not attack - they have no the desire, the energy for this although they can well defend themselves, and there is no limit how far they can go doing this. I think it is an important point since in my interpretation, an external aggression bends inwards one's immune system, the self-defense. Otherwise, I agree with him that love opens the door for it - love is a hole in the immune system - it misleads the friend-or-foe system; and further, when the external authority get replaced by the super-ego, it can exercise its power over the ego only as long as the later is erotically attached to the former (Chapter VIII). Those who concerns about their personal development, I think, should bear in mind this.
He does not mention hierarchy. When the defence, the immune system, (or one's own aggression, in Freudian interpretation) bends inwards, it can become an extension of someone else's will projected onto the person in question: An external will can manipulate a person via s/his super-ego, or, in other words, an external will gains control over one's energy that initially belonged to their ego through their super-ego - that's how hierarchies are formed. It seems that these libidinal ties are exactly the same that are supposed to bind mankind into closely-knit mass according to Freud.]
Have you even notice what happens when someone's else will gets inside you? Something interesting: you may be able to feel a whole range of feelings: sympathy, which sometimes even tends to turn into something like love, guilt, or fear.**** That is, on the subconscious level there is very little difference between love and fear. Such vagueness and ambiguity is inherent to the subconscious when it comes to merging with others; on the contrary, when it comes to separating from them, there is no room for any vagueness and ambiguity.***** Due to this vagueness and ambiguity the subconscious mind is prone to mixing up and tangling - I mean neuroses and so on - and if this happens, that's why it is so difficult to put it in order again. For the subconscious mind love and fear sometimes are the same thing, but the denial is the opposite of both of them so the solution seems obvious: to live up to the separating tendency. And then the meaning some of Buddhists practices, Zen, in particular, becomes clear - they do just that.******
And a closer look reveals that there is nothing sacred about civilization: it is only an embodiment of the super-ego: in the best case, it is just preserved past experience, in the worse, all sorts of prohibitions, restrictions and so on; on the contrary, something really new can only be created by an individual. So I was surprised to read this: The super-ego of an epoch of civilization has an origin similar to that of an individual. It is based on the impression left behind by the personalities of great leaders — men of overwhelming force of mind or men in whom one of the human impulsions has found its strongest and purest, and therefore often its most one-sided, expression. Indeed, bearing in mind what the cultural super-ego really is, it is interesting to consider who of thinkers are really worthy to be called geniuses: those who create the barriers or who break them. As for me, the bible and Dostoevsky are the last things I recommend to those who are concerned with their self-development and self-realization. I began by pointing out that Freud failed to recognize that apart from the tendency to merge, Eros, there is a tendency to separate, which would make the matter much easy to understand. I also believe that this tendency points the ways to solve that problems he listed. ----------------------------------------------------
*If hunger were really an instinct of self-preservation, it would not be able to turn into gluttony, as it sometimes does.
**And unless it is the derivative of libido (or vice versa?), this negation seems to be a second separate source of energy. An interesting fact: Yogi experiences, and Yogi distinguish two sources of energy in the organism: prana, the energy on life, and kundalini, the mental energy
***Actually, now this phrase has the opposite to Dawkins' meaning. ****Which makes me wonder if love is the cause or effect of an external intrusion, i.e. aggression. And then is love a kind of manipulation? The majority would agree that sex is definitely a manipulation, what about love then? Or can love be mutual? I think it can but it always means different things for each side - each partner solves their own personal problems.
*****I may also add that we actually can perceive the external world objectively and correctly when we deny it and lose this ability when we merge - when for some reason we daren't deny them. ******Doing zazen, as Katsuki Sekida recommends in his Zen training : methods and philosophy, or practising the way as I do it means working with your pure ego, the total denial of everything, which can give the feeling not only of absolute freedom but also of omnipotents (come to think of it, it's this feeling of omnipotence that some criminals and politicians achieve doing nasty things, and it can be obtained to a much greater extent and without any harm to others just by the right practice. Sometimes the practice of asceticism is much more than just escapism.
https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FreudS-CIVILIZATION-AND-ITS-DISCONTENTS-text-final.pdf
His view
But he instead introduces the idea of the death instinct which is very close to the idea of the separating tendency, but yet is not the same. Freud distinguishes two types of instincts: the ego instincts - or instincts of self-preservation, as hunger, for example - and the object or libidinal instincts which seek for objects, i.e. love in its widest sense or Eros (it is for the energy of these instincts he introduces the term libido), and there is a struggle between them: Neurosis was regarded as the outcome of a struggle between the interest of self-preservation and the demands of the libido, a struggle in which the ego had been victorious but at the price of severe sufferings and renunciations. (Chapter VI)Then he introduces the idea of the death instinct (or the instinct of destruction) which seeks to 'dissolve those units and to bring them back to their primaeval, inorganic state' and from which the instinct of aggression eventually derives: That is to say, as well as Eros there was an instinct of death. The phenomena of life could be explained from the concurrent or mutually opposing action of these two instincts (Chapter VI). Thus, there appears to be another struggle: between Eros and the death instinct. For Freud the death instinct is libidinal too so the id turns out to be a source of two such contrasting energies.
My view
It is surprising that Freud failed to recognize that apart from the tendency to merge (Eros), there is a tendency to separate, which can be easily seen when we are overwhelmed by any social commitments (actually, he admits that independence from the outer world and fate is sorely craved, but it is not one of the primal needs or instincts for him). I already noticed here that the three levels of life that Dawkins views in his The Extended Phenotype: genes, the organism, and group are suspiciously similar to Freudian the id, ego, and super-ego, and that there are two primal tendencies (when it comes to the organism or to mental processes in particular): the tendency to merge and the tendency to separate. The tendency to merge, which is the same as the Freudian work of Eros, can be easily recognized by the fact that it manifests itself by desires to gain something. This category includes what Freud calls the object instincts and some of ego instincts as well: for example, hunger is the desire for food*. When we follow the merging tendency, we are guided by the pleasure principle. So far I mostly agree with Freud, but there are some things that I disagree with him when it comes to the separating tendency. The tendency to separate, in my view, is identical to the ego (on the other hand, the merging tendency should be attributed go the work of the id and super-ego) and to the immune system - they are the same thing in fact - so the ego in its pure form is a total negation of the outer world. In particular, it can reveal itself as a desire to deny or get rid of something: for example, when it comes to hunger, the separating tendency is the strength that allows one to overcome the desire. It is indeed close to the Freudian death instinct but not the same: you have probably already noticed that what he calls the death instinct in my humble opinion is the tendency of self-preservation so in this quotation he actually writes about the same struggle between the merging, Eros, and separating tendencies: Neurosis was regarded as the outcome of a struggle between the interest of self-preservation and the demands of the libido, a struggle in which the ego had been victorious but at the price of severe sufferings and renunciations. (Chapter VI)His view
Freud believes that this struggle between Eros and the death instinct is a manifestation of organic life in general, and it is repeated on different levels - form the development of the individual to the cultural process that involves in humanity. He also believes that if the innate tendency to aggression (the derivative and chief representative of the death instinct) had not been blocked by Eros, there would be an inevitable disaster. And in doing this job, Eros libidinally binds together 'single human individuals, and after that families, then races, peoples and nations, into one great unity, the unity of mankind. Why this has to happen, we do not know; the work of Eros is precisely this.' - Chapter VI - this is the meaning of the evolution of culture according to Freud.
My view
It is surprising that he leaves no room for the development of consciousness although many believe that the meaning of the cultural process and even the entire evolution of life is precisely this. And here the idea of the separating tendency is best suited because it is the same as individualization and the development of consciousness: I believe it explains how the mind works when it comes to understanding.** Then what would you say if I put it this way: the evolution of life and the cultural process in particular can be described as a struggle between life (Eros) and the development of consciousness? Or, paraphrasing Richard Dawkins, the former is just a vehicle for the later?*** Thus, the Freudian struggle between life and death is not the whole story - things are more complicated - but in fact he is right: once consciousness emerges, it starts denying life.Love
I have already noticed that Freud believes that if the innate tendency for aggression had not been blocked by Eros, there would be an inevitable disaster, but it is not just a question of replacing aggression with love - see Chapter VII - innate aggressiveness can not just disappear. Instead, the presence of love causes ambivalence of feeling towards the person aggression has been directed (originally it was father), love and hate at the same time, which causes remorse that further evolves into the sense of guilt - this is the role of love. The result is ever-increasing sense of guilt which Freud regards as the most important problem in the evolution of culture.
So far I mostly agree: I can just replace aggressiveness with the total negation (the immune system) initially directed outwards and then bent inwards. However, I think, Freud is missing something. I believe that there's a difference between aggressiveness and self-defense; of course, a very vague difference, but it exists. Zen practice - i.e. the practice of perceiving yourself not as a member of a group but as an individual - has allowed me to notice one peculiarity: One can attack others only as a member of a group, on behalf of this group (in most cases it is just an imaginary group). As an individual, one can not attack - they have no the desire, the energy for this although they can well defend themselves, and there is no limit how far they can go doing this. I think it is an important point since in my interpretation, an external aggression bends inwards one's immune system, the self-defense. Otherwise, I agree with him that love opens the door for it - love is a hole in the immune system - it misleads the friend-or-foe system; and further, when the external authority get replaced by the super-ego, it can exercise its power over the ego only as long as the later is erotically attached to the former (Chapter VIII). Those who concerns about their personal development, I think, should bear in mind this.
He does not mention hierarchy. When the defence, the immune system, (or one's own aggression, in Freudian interpretation) bends inwards, it can become an extension of someone else's will projected onto the person in question: An external will can manipulate a person via s/his super-ego, or, in other words, an external will gains control over one's energy that initially belonged to their ego through their super-ego - that's how hierarchies are formed. It seems that these libidinal ties are exactly the same that are supposed to bind mankind into closely-knit mass according to Freud.]
Have you even notice what happens when someone's else will gets inside you? Something interesting: you may be able to feel a whole range of feelings: sympathy, which sometimes even tends to turn into something like love, guilt, or fear.**** That is, on the subconscious level there is very little difference between love and fear. Such vagueness and ambiguity is inherent to the subconscious when it comes to merging with others; on the contrary, when it comes to separating from them, there is no room for any vagueness and ambiguity.***** Due to this vagueness and ambiguity the subconscious mind is prone to mixing up and tangling - I mean neuroses and so on - and if this happens, that's why it is so difficult to put it in order again. For the subconscious mind love and fear sometimes are the same thing, but the denial is the opposite of both of them so the solution seems obvious: to live up to the separating tendency. And then the meaning some of Buddhists practices, Zen, in particular, becomes clear - they do just that.******
Civilization
If civilization is the same as the work of Eros, they should both have the same features. And one particular things about Eros is that you can not be led by Eros forever: you finally get exhausted. And this is exactly what happens if one tries to force people to unite******* - they lose the sense of their self, which leads them to deny the environment and for this many resort to aggression. As a matter of fact, many commit crimes just to break this barriers or to crystallize their selves when they get dissolved in too much social engagement. In the long run, Eros left to itself and not curbed by the separating tendency, leads to death - the paradox is that Freud calls the later the death instinct. As far as civilization works against individualization and makes people think of ourselves not as individuals but as members of groups, it can resolve nothing in the long term, so the inevitable crisis is predetermined. Thus, civilization itself creates problems which then tries to resolve.And a closer look reveals that there is nothing sacred about civilization: it is only an embodiment of the super-ego: in the best case, it is just preserved past experience, in the worse, all sorts of prohibitions, restrictions and so on; on the contrary, something really new can only be created by an individual. So I was surprised to read this: The super-ego of an epoch of civilization has an origin similar to that of an individual. It is based on the impression left behind by the personalities of great leaders — men of overwhelming force of mind or men in whom one of the human impulsions has found its strongest and purest, and therefore often its most one-sided, expression. Indeed, bearing in mind what the cultural super-ego really is, it is interesting to consider who of thinkers are really worthy to be called geniuses: those who create the barriers or who break them. As for me, the bible and Dostoevsky are the last things I recommend to those who are concerned with their self-development and self-realization. I began by pointing out that Freud failed to recognize that apart from the tendency to merge, Eros, there is a tendency to separate, which would make the matter much easy to understand. I also believe that this tendency points the ways to solve that problems he listed. ----------------------------------------------------
*If hunger were really an instinct of self-preservation, it would not be able to turn into gluttony, as it sometimes does.
**And unless it is the derivative of libido (or vice versa?), this negation seems to be a second separate source of energy. An interesting fact: Yogi experiences, and Yogi distinguish two sources of energy in the organism: prana, the energy on life, and kundalini, the mental energy
***Actually, now this phrase has the opposite to Dawkins' meaning. ****Which makes me wonder if love is the cause or effect of an external intrusion, i.e. aggression. And then is love a kind of manipulation? The majority would agree that sex is definitely a manipulation, what about love then? Or can love be mutual? I think it can but it always means different things for each side - each partner solves their own personal problems.
*****I may also add that we actually can perceive the external world objectively and correctly when we deny it and lose this ability when we merge - when for some reason we daren't deny them. ******Doing zazen, as Katsuki Sekida recommends in his Zen training : methods and philosophy, or practising the way as I do it means working with your pure ego, the total denial of everything, which can give the feeling not only of absolute freedom but also of omnipotents (come to think of it, it's this feeling of omnipotence that some criminals and politicians achieve doing nasty things, and it can be obtained to a much greater extent and without any harm to others just by the right practice. Sometimes the practice of asceticism is much more than just escapism.
.*******I especially like his idea that Eros binding people together, works against personal happiness (Chapter VIII).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------https://www.stephenhicks.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/FreudS-CIVILIZATION-AND-ITS-DISCONTENTS-text-final.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment