Monday, 25 February 2008

A Freudian analysis of Sigmund

Sit back and relaaaaax, Herr Freud....It's okay, you can trust me....
I have read your work extensively and have reached a conclusion of my own, however, I'd like to maybe prove it by analysing you and interpreting your dreams...
Herr Freud, I notice that a lot of your analysis has dealings in sexual perversions and illicit sexual relations. To put it rather lightly, you are rather obssessed with the sexual act, one wonders why.
YOu are married I presume?
I speculate.
Perhaps your wife does not pleasure you enough, and thus, with such a lack of sexual activity (let alone perversion) in your life, you phantasize seeing it in the lives of your patients. They may not even be perverse, but you are, maybe not in action, but definitely in thought.
Perhaps you suggested to your wife that you experiment with these perverse and horrific ways of pleasure, and she left you. Ah, definitely a man slighted thus would then long for the pleasure of being perverse and then find perverse roots in ordinary acts. Only such a man would draw an analogy between thumb-sucking and blow-jobs.
Look, Herr Freud, I don't pretend to know much about men, neither about your perverse and horrific behaviour. But I do know that you are a perverse nymphomaniac, if only in your mind. That is why all you see are perverse sexual relationships. Not all dreams have erotic roots. I had this dream last week, where my whole girls' athletic team (except me, I was next..) was brutally massacred by this lady who I used to go to for math tuitions. You may try to say that I was in love with this lady, and these teammates were my contenders, I say, flaff, utter flaff. I have no idea why I have such hilarious dreams.
Not all cases of hysteria or phobias arise due to being homosexual (unconsciously) or being madly in love with one's father and one's maternal uncle. Some dreams are just that, inexplicable.
So, I suggest you spring clean your mind, clear out all that pent-up sexual energy in you. Throw away all the porn and the back issues of Playboy I'm sure you have, and go on vacation, alone, far from the maddeningly sexy crowd.
That ends our session for today.

Utter bull.
Brought on by reading Freud's case histories.
I'm So gonna get bashed by those psych students who follow the Freudian school of psychoanalysis...
(yeah, I do this when I'm supposed to be studying.)


taurius1 said...

I had the same kind of thoughts when I tried to read his work too. It all seems like overglorified propaganda of sorts to me. :/
Like how some things just get the right publicity and become declared historically important. Like Shakespear, for example... or mass distributed religous texts...

Cyclops said...

Absolut BS. You truly understand nothing about Freud or his work. Much of what he wrote is today considered either wrong, or inconclusive, but there are a few basic concepts in psychoanalysis that are fundamental and irreducible. And of course the case histories are rubbish, I myself admit that. But that is just same old same old, nobody is concerned about those things anymore. As for “getting bashed by those psych students...”, gee, just what else do you expect anyway ?? Just knowing the English language doesn’t qualify you, a mere child, to judge a theory of psychology in this fashion, without context or analysis. Concerning “the Freudian school of psychoanalysis...”, it ceased existing decades ago. Psychoanalysis is no longer at the frontier of psychiatry, has been in the rearguard for ages now. Do please get your facts right if you are really serious about anything at all. It’s a different thing if you’re simply addling your brain as an escape from boredom, and are out here just to garner comments and hit-counts.

Since a teenage girl is commenting on Freud’s theories in a manner that smacks of mimicking feminists (called “role playing” in modern psychology, my friend), I can see how primitive your knowledge of human nature is. Me, I don’t even care that much, this particular blog post of yours makes you look like a pretentious charlatan, that’s all I gotta say.

five_silver_rings said...

Hahaha! good one, like this piece.

taurius1 said...

like i'd said before, my thoughts on freud's work largely reflected what mystique said. i stick to pasttense because read it a long time ago and have a different perspective of the world now. however, one thing that does still stay with me is that all the while i was reading the literature, i couldn't help but feel the doctor was being a bit presumptious. borderline propaganga, if you may.

plzdonttrythisathome said...

Why do you care..? he basically a guy who couldnt have sex and ended up jotting down these stuff..

Lakshay Sharma said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Lakshay Sharma said...

well, nice reading that post. but i really wouldn't blame him for being so oversexed. i think he probably was on an unending course of some drug which actually was a primitive uncontrolled form of viagra and was under the impression it was vitamin b complex tablets. and as for his sexual studies, freud defined sexual desire as the primary motivational energy of human life which is directed toward a wide variety of objects. so i think we can draw a parallel between newton and him, coz newton said gravitational force of attraction existed between every object and every other object. so maybe freud was a newton wannabe who tried drawing a parallel between gravitational force and sexual force or libido. considering this to be true, he probably made a law: there exists a sexual force of attraction between every object and every other object in the universe. i imagine how it would be if sexual force like gravitational force became scientifically accepted "law" (as in law of gravity).... raping probably wouldnt carry such heavy penalties in such a scenario, or probably no penalty at all.... hope we never see such a day....

♥bμşγ-ŵŗϊŧēŕ♥ said...

lol..whaaa?! :O

am gonna read this author now.

curious. very very.

maybe u shld send him this in his fan mail.


The Holy Cow said...

I think there is some truth to what both Cyclops and Taurius1 say. The sad part of the history of all thought and theorizing in human history is the impression that they are "propaganda". But if you are confident enough in your own thoughts on things, you wouldn't need to diss others to make your point.

To Taurius1- psychoanalysis would be very different if it HAD got the kind of publicity it warranted. It doesn't take a psychology major or a psychoanalyst to figure out the intense aversion people have to this particular school of psychology. It is deemed as being historically important by individuals who have given it a chance and explored it. It is deemed as being notorious and "perverse" by those who haven't bothered, possibly because of a fear of being perverted by it! Why else is it that people don't even bother giving it an honest chance? Pseudo Puritanism. That's what. And that's what Psychoanalysis is an attack against.

My feelings are in agreement with Cyclops. Mystique, my dear, you do not know Freud if this is what you think a "Freudian analysis" is. Don't use terms loosely. Don't write a post about a theory you haven't delved deeply enough into. You come out looking like a child who is saying something just so someone will notice.

To Lakshay Sharma- A thoughtless remark like the one about rape that you ended with suggests a desire to end your comment on a powerful note. But again, like Mystique's entire post, it reflects a lack of understanding of Freud. Psychoanalysis makes a distinction between one's psychic state/ content and one's actual behaviour in society and the world. It forces one to bridge the gap we all like to have between rapists, pedophiles, murderers and the "others" by humbling us into a realisation that the mind from which arise these "other things" has the same processes and structures as ours. The difference lies in acting out. Rape is unacceptable and brutal and inhumane. Accepting psychoanalytic theory does NOT mean an acceptance of rape. Freud, even when he spoke of phantasies of sexuality in children, did NOT say child sexual abuse did not happen or that it was okay.

Oh, one more thing Mystique- try counting the number of times you have said the word "perverse" in your post. This could mean two things:-
1. Problems of elasticity in your writing and vocabulary.
2. It gives one a sense of a need in you to constantly re-iterate the alleged perversion of psychoanalysis to yourself. When one is too vehement about something, and that too without sufficient and detailed explanation as to why, its time to ask- What is this REALLY about?

It must be clear by now that I think psychoanalytic theory is quite brilliant. I am a student of Psychoanalysis but I urge you to form your own opinions on it AFTER you have understood enough, and/or are able to express them as serious opinions.

If you wish you read Freud, don't start with case histories. There are volumes of Freud's original works- Introductory lectures in Psychoanalysis to start with, translated by Strachey. Try getting those.

taurius1 said...

@The Holy Cow
I get what you're saying. Right now, at the place I am in my life today, I just wonder if there ever is a need to delve one's dreams in this fashion.

The Holy Cow said...

To Taurius1- I am not sure I understand what you mean by "Delve one's dreams in this fashion" ?

Which dreams do you speak of? Psychoanalysis as your(?) or Mystique's dream, or this blog and what she writes on it as her dreams that shouldn't be delved into?

Or are you speaking of the psychoanalytic practice of delving into the meanings of dreams?

Do explain. I would like to understand. :-/

Lakshay Sharma said...

to the hoy cow: i wasn't entirely serious about my comment.... but anyway, thanks for enlightening me on the freudian understanding of psychoanalysis.

Cyclops said...

Forgive me, but your reply to me is rather obscure. Please do explain what you mean by "different perspective". And I do agree that Freud does sound a bit presumptious on occasion. Also, do please bear in mind that psychology (or any science for that matter) is not learnt by reading third-hand from books. You guys obviously do not have access to the data of psychotics' confessions that are obtained in clinics, or else you would not mock Freud in this manner. As for “delve into one’s dream in this manner”, that comment is just clueless and inane. It is no longer done this way, this is not how modern psychiatrists analyze dreams. Taurius, with all due respect, the whole tone of your writing indicates a love for eloquence and a need to impress, rather than an analytical bent of mind.

@ Mystique
No course or manual that chronicles psychology and its history omits Freud, and for sound reasons. Post-Freud a lot of progress has occured in psychology ; the birth of fields such as Behaviorism, Developmental Psychology, The General Theory etc., none of which would have been arrived at without Freud & psychoanalysis. These fields are neither popular with, nor accessible to, the lay public in the manner that Freud's work is, and frankly I hope it stays that way. Because I really dont want to come across more bored bloggers (like Mystique, Taurius & Mr. “Lakshay Sharma”) with nothing better on their hands, writing preposterous nonsense about things they do not understand.

Freud's work is comparable to that of Isaac Newton. (Oh, and for the record, my comparison of Freud to Newton has nothing in common with the utter garbage spouted by Mr. “Lakshay Sharma”, who is just trying to sound smart.) Newton's theories are, strictly speaking, WRONG ; they have been invalidated by twentieth-century physics. And yet, they do contain the germ of the truth ; the 'new' physics would never have seen the light of day without Newton.

The tradition of women going chisel and hammer at Freud is an old one ; and many of us have long suspected that it is so because SOME of Freud’s ideas are indeed true, and women find that ‘truth’ offensive. Because if they were truly convinced that his ideas are nonsense, then they really would not bother to prove them wrong. Cervantes called this phenomenon "denial", long before psychology even became a science. And Mystique, you're not even a woman yet ; you're just a kid, and in the normal process of imitating the writers you read.

Mystique, my humble suggestion to you guys is that try to find books that outline for you the HISTORY of psychology ; that is, only if your interest towards the subject is NOT limited to drawing room conversation. Repeating the same old same old of “Booo Freud is white male chauvinist patriarch etc. etc.” , a debate that shold have ended a long time ago, is not going to help anyone, espescially you. It will also help you to view psychology whole, and how different fields derive from and contribute to each other.

taurius1 said...

I'll admit straight out that I DO know nothing aboiut psychology. More so that

When I said that I wondered about the need to "delve into one's dreams in such a fashion" I simply wanted to say, what is the motivation to analyse dreams? More to the point, why try and associate osbscure imagery in dreams with hidden sexual desires?

The dreams I speak of are anyone's dreams. I'm under the impression that anyone's dreams can be psychoanalysed...

plzdonttrythisathome said...

hey shalaka never xpected so many rrewiews did you..?? and anyways... i still dont knw why do you care..? and you guys actually like such weird ass topics..?

The Holy Cow said...

To Taurius1- Thank you for your clarification. Your question, while significant in its own right, cannot be answered in a satisfactory manner by a third person (What Cyclops says is quite worthy of attention and thought). But in a nutshell, I would say that the motivation arises out of an interest in oneself. Dreams are extremely creative psychic works of art, and some of us feel that to ignore them would be to lose out on a large segment of one's own being. Again, please try to refrain from commenting on what the process of dream interpretation is like (Ref: your comment about "relating obscure visual imagery in dreams to sexual desires") before you have experienced it or read enough accounts to come to any conclusions. Also, meanings can be drawn out of any dream, but only if and to the extent that the dreamer is interested. A common misconception about the psychoanalytic process is that the analysand lies there while the analyst tells him what his dreams mean. That is not the practice.

To Cyclops: I find that I am quite in agreement with your thoughts on this issue. However, regarding the women going chisel and hammer at Freud, I would still say that it is a matter of perspective and not a refusal to accept the "truth". Feminist psychoanalysts such as Mitchell etc. have points of divergence on the debatable aspects of his theory, not the fundamentals.

I am intrigued by the extent of your defense of psychoanalysis and what comes across as a very firm stand in defense of truth in general.

Mystique said...

oh great, now I have to redo it all.

basically I'd like to say to everyone, especially cyclps and holy cow, that I owe you all an apology, and please don't judge me by this.....
I am deeply interested in psychology, and I was going to study it before unavoidable circumstances made me take up science.
holy cow, my writing is indeed not as elastic as I'd like it to be, with the result that when I get kinda hyperexcited I tend to stick to one word.I'm not ignoring my dreams, I just don't know how to interpret them.
To venky, whatever, and to five_silver_rings, thanks.

Cyclops said...

@The Holy Cow :
Thank you, I am pleased if anyone found my comments useful / interesting. Though that wasn’t my intention to begin with. Basically I had not encountered this kind of parodying of Freud in quite some time. So this post caught me off guard and threw me into a rage. And I just wrote what came into my head, at impulse. Which is why perhaps my comment came off as a little hostile.

@Mystique :
Peace. Of course.