The Dialectics of Repression.

The origins of the imperative, "know thyself", are lost in the sands of time, but the age-old examination of human consciousness continues here.

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby The Last Man » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:04 pm

Anyways, I will take my own advice in regards to silence, and for quite different reasons of my own. I have no interest trading blows and egos here, nor do I consider this conversation with you a useful or sufficient enough reason to truly let my fangs out, so I will take my leave of you in regards to this issue. Do what you like in terms of pursuing your intentions and goals here, I will merely choose to ignore it from now on.

And please do not feel that I have any enmity towards you if we ever converse elsewhere on this website in the future.
Last edited by The Last Man on Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
It is not the strengths, but the durations of great sentiments that make great men. -Nietzsche

Genius never desires what does not exist. -Kierkegaard

The first and last thing required of genius is the love of truth. -Goethe

The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes. There is in him not only the universality of men, but of all nature. He is the man to whom all things tell their secrets, to whom most happens, and whom least escapes. He understands most things, and those most deeply, because he has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare them with. The genius is he who is conscious of most, and of that most acutely. -Weininger

I don't roll on shabbos. -Walter
User avatar
The Last Man
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:03 am
Location: Here

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Coatless » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:12 pm

I'm honestly staggered by your assertions. Truly- I'm sitting here with my jaw dropped, shaking my head. I keep expecting you to say you're pulling my leg or something.

So I'm not really sure what to say, especially since I always enjoy reading your posts here and had considered you such a level-headed and very likeable fellow. However, it seems you're convinced my character is evil and my intent malign, though reading back through this thread it's hard for me to imagine how you should possibly come to that conclusion. [ETA: Can anyone else here, with a perhaps less emotional perspective, shed some light on this?]

As for refusing to refute your claims, I utterly and completely deny everything you have said as total hysterical madness. I cannot credit it. But in any case, you are profoundly wrong. Following such an unjustified and outrageous slur on my character, I cannot be silent about this. You're way too far out of line.
I think they're for 1am.
User avatar
Coatless
 
Posts: 264
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2009 10:33 am
Location: The muddle ground

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Thu Feb 25, 2010 5:51 pm

The Last Man wrote:Do you make it your personal mission to follow Ascolo around and taunt him until he gets banned for responding to your innane instigations?

Indeed - shouldn't there be a policy against posters who parasite off other posters flammable emotions? But I'll drop this subject now.
they are functions of man's sufferings, in a direct and absolutely dependent sense. He is mostly correct when he says that suffering is the only value

I reject this idea - it is in no way made plausible to me that suffering is the basic value. It simply isn't viable bio-logically - only accidentally could it be sufficient impetus for an organism to persist, but as already the entire coming-to-being of life and of structure itself is supposed ot be accidental, it would only add to the implausibility of the model we, as anything-but-creationists, pretend to share. Overcoming suffering, on the other hand, could be a basic value, from which suffering as a value is then derived, instead of vice versa. As such we get to a more dynamic, less Platonic thesis - as it describes a human action, a true state of consciousness, whereas suffering is an abstraction. Overcoming, or trying to overcome suffering, is between suffering and pleasure - what I call existential rapture is (of course) overcoming. Overcoming as being overcoming no being - i.e., becoming, physis. Ontology is falling back into a Nietzschean/Heideggerian focus for me now that Ascolo is no longer here to try to convince me that there is something deeper, which I very much appreciated, as long as it lasted, and as much as I still disagree with him.

Ascolo did turn me on to another interesting philosopher- Schelling - I am now reading Zizek, who indeed goes into Schelling a lot. Its interesting how much what the two share, via Lacan, is very easily explained in kabbalistic terms, as crossing the abyss, as the pre-ontological becoming Real via a primordial act, which cannot be traced back to but is nontheless rooted in, well, something that I can not yet defined in either Schellings or Zizeks terms, but in kabbalistic terms the, supernal triad. But what does this say about repression?

Zizek relates how, in my own words, the act which establishes law, a consciousness, is a primordial crime against the consciousness it comes on top of - a crime which has to immediately sink into unconsciousness for the new consciousness to remain operative. So there is a fundamental, primordial repression which is necessary to function as a consciousness.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby The Last Man » Thu Feb 25, 2010 11:15 pm

Jakob wrote:
they are functions of man's sufferings, in a direct and absolutely dependent sense. He is mostly correct when he says that suffering is the only value

I reject this idea - it is in no way made plausible to me that suffering is the basic value. It simply isn't viable bio-logically - only accidentally could it be sufficient impetus for an organism to persist, but as already the entire coming-to-being of life and of structure itself is supposed ot be accidental, it would only add to the implausibility of the model we, as anything-but-creationists, pretend to share. Overcoming suffering, on the other hand, could be a basic value, from which suffering as a value is then derived, instead of vice versa. As such we get to a more dynamic, less Platonic thesis - as it describes a human action, a true state of consciousness, whereas suffering is an abstraction. Overcoming, or trying to overcome suffering, is between suffering and pleasure - what I call existential rapture is (of course) overcoming. Overcoming as being overcoming no being - i.e., becoming, physis. Ontology is falling back into a Nietzschean/Heideggerian focus for me now that Ascolo is no longer here to try to convince me that there is something deeper, which I very much appreciated, as long as it lasted, and as much as I still disagree with him.


I share your perspective here. I think that we are understanding a single word, "suffering", in different ways, but I think that the essence of what we mean is very similar. When I agree with Ascolo that suffering is the only value (almost the only value) what I mean is perhaps not what he means - I mean that struggle and movement, being in a state of lack and of need, of insufficiency or imperfection or incomplete saturation. A sort of being-in-lack, if you will. This state necessarily engenders the organism, on whatever level it exists, to structure and organize itself in such a way as to mitigate or relieve this need, to fill it up, to saturate itself (its potentialities), else that organism will perish, will be subsumed underneath another organic process which is performing this action of filling-up more effectively than itself.

This is why, how, I have resisted the thought of the ubiquity of suffering from overtaking my consciousness. There was a moment when I was contemplating this idea deeply, and I encountered superficially this state of being consumed by it... it overwhelmed my senses and emotions, memories and hopes and joy, threatening to take their place by usurping them within itself. What Ascolo talks about in his three stages, this is very, very real. But I also had, at this precise moment, a thought, inspired from Zarathustra, about not throwing away one's most heroic value with one's 'waking up', with his overcoming. I consider this most noble or heroic within me the vision of radiant joy and creative expression, as I have tried to hint at earlier despite the concept being somewhat beyond mere words -- what I called, in sum, innocence (or love). I could not throw this away. I could not, but more than that, I would not, it cried out in protest, I began to cry at the sight of the tremendous monstrousness of the act I was about to perform -- to truly murder oneself. This is something I cannot do, am not ready to do. Is this holding-on a false attachment, a superficiality, an egoism, a love of self? I dont know. But even if it is, I do not despair of it, for as Nietzsche writes through Zarathustra: "There is always some madness in love. Yet there is also always some reason in madness." I must give myself over to my intuitions here, at this point of staring into the abyss, i must trust and have faith in that most irrefutable and sublime within me - to do otherwise would be such a contradiction of my very nature, of the truly genuine and philosophic-of-spirit that I feel embodies me, that, despite that I understand this ultimate resistance little, I nonetheless know that it represents the best and highest within me. This knowledge, sincere and simple and irrefutable, has sustained me against this storm.

I feel as if I have encountered this chasm perhaps too early, perhaps I have not yet gained enough substance to fall back upon after the burning-away. . . . regardless, I resisted. And in so resisting, this perspective of 'suffering' was incorporated within this more essential structure, my more implicit and highest image and perspective, embodied within Nietzsche's character of Zarathustra and in a very, very real way. This perspective, this lightness and joy and laughter and innocence, glowed anew and flamed itself, became a bit more assertive, began to take within itself, to appropriate the perspective of suffering in that I tend to agree with you that a sort of basic existential rapture, if you will, a basic creative force or willing is at the heart of beings-in-suffering. It is more of an impulse, but for myself, I know it is true. But nonetheless I still agree with Ascolo, his perspective is true I think, that happiness and human valuations are reactions against suffering, they depend upon a state of being in need/lack, they are responses in an unconscious/structural sense... and yet, as I wrote, this does not, for me, take anything away for them, nor does it change their essential nature or how we experience them.

When we experience something as *real*, regardless of how we define it or if we later come to think it as illusion or dream, it is still experienced as real. It is made real, in the mind, by the mind. Perhaps this hints at the deep-rooted creative will at the heart of man. To value, to esteem, to grant meaning to, to be in happiness, these states are no less real or important or wonderful because they derive secondarily from a more basic unconscious suffering (lack) -- and further to this, as I tried to indicate, as humans I believe that (perhaps all of us, perhaps only few of us) have a creative, self-affirmative essence which we might not even know or sense in any way, but which grants us immediacy and sustainability within our experiences - which gives deeper meaning - so that, when our unconscious sufferings or energies flow in new directions, a permanence is still maintained, a state of 'being human', of willing, Being which sustains itself not reactively but actively, for its own sake. To me, this is at the heart of man.

Taking this idea, this Image of thought and becoming it, projecting it within oneself, living it is maybe something I am not yet ready for - I will take such a step, maybe your kabalistic crossing of the abyss, when I feel the moment is ripe for it, when all circumstances converge and when my strength and joy are at their peak, when I am most myself, honest and penetrating and light. Is this resistance, this putting-off of the moment apathy or rationalizing, is it a being afraid? In part, yes, I know it is all of these things. But behind these psychological functions lies, I believe, a sincere realisation that the moment is not yet here, that to take this step now, prematurely, would lead to the irreversible incorporation of error and impurity and darkness, loss of my substantial self, my essence, within me, in some incomprehensible way that I cannot really explain... basically, yes I fear this step, but fear indicates respect, at least in this moment for me it does. When I can laugh at this fear with joy, when I take it into myself and affirm it with love, when I make it truly my own, then perhaps the step will be taken, the abyss opened up before me.

Anyways, speaking in metaphor isnt quite as much my strength as Ascolo's, although it seems to be the only way that I can formulate these responses even somewhat coherently. But basically I think we are in agreement with regard to suffering, only that I think we might see it from a slightly different perspective or emphasis, which is of course perfectly fine and good. I like to think that I can incorporate yours and Ascolo's perspectives together, I think that this is in essence what I am doing, but I also realise that I am forming a third image in this manner, one that is somewhat different from the basis of each of your perspectives - and yet, this personalization, individuation is absolutely necessary, perhaps the highest goal of a true philosopher, to learn not to imitate but to create -- not to imitate through one's creating, but to create through one's imitating.

Ascolo did turn me on to another interesting philosopher- Schelling - I am now reading Zizek, who indeed goes into Schelling a lot. Its interesting how much what the two share, via Lacan, is very easily explained in kabbalistic terms, as crossing the abyss, as the pre-ontological becoming Real via a primordial act, which cannot be traced back to but is nontheless rooted in, well, something that I can not yet defined in either Schellings or Zizeks terms, but in kabbalistic terms the, supernal triad.


I will have to read some more of these fellows they are very interesting. Can you elaborate a bit more on the 'supernal triad'? Using PMs would maybe be perferrable here if you wish, since Ascolo has be forced away from us.
It is not the strengths, but the durations of great sentiments that make great men. -Nietzsche

Genius never desires what does not exist. -Kierkegaard

The first and last thing required of genius is the love of truth. -Goethe

The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes. There is in him not only the universality of men, but of all nature. He is the man to whom all things tell their secrets, to whom most happens, and whom least escapes. He understands most things, and those most deeply, because he has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare them with. The genius is he who is conscious of most, and of that most acutely. -Weininger

I don't roll on shabbos. -Walter
User avatar
The Last Man
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:03 am
Location: Here

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:08 pm

This is why, how, I have resisted the thought of the ubiquity of suffering from overtaking my consciousness. There was a moment when I was contemplating this idea deeply, and I encountered superficially this state of being consumed by it... it overwhelmed my senses and emotions, memories and hopes and joy, threatening to take their place by usurping them within itself. What Ascolo talks about in his three stages, this is very, very real. But I also had, at this precise moment, a thought, inspired from Zarathustra, about not throwing away one's most heroic value with one's 'waking up', with his overcoming. I consider this most noble or heroic within me the vision of radiant joy and creative expression, as I have tried to hint at earlier despite the concept being somewhat beyond mere words -- what I called, in sum, innocence (or love). I could not throw this away.

I think I'm with you there. So it is not a matter of whether or not Ascolo's step is truthful, but whether or not it is desirable - whether it is justified.
Of course this concept, justification, is exactly what I (and Nietzsche and perhaps you) differ from in opinion with Ascolo. That would follow logically from the steps we've made.

I do want to go into the supernal triad, but I'm not sure how much it will amount to given that it is an occult theorem that gives form and structure to the essentially formless, which does not, in the strictest philosophical sense, make sense. I don't know what can be accomplished by it exoterically - that is, in language. But in the meantime, I would be interested to read more about this awareness of the ubiquity of suffering. Could you descibe this? Does it have to do with an inherent lack of capacity in all organisms to fully incorporate what they conceive of as existing? This is how I now understand the suffering which drives organisms, and cultures, to evolve into greater structures.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:47 pm

Thesis the pleasure principle + Antithesis the reality principle =
Synthesis repression

Thesis the pain principle + antithesis the illusion-principle
Synthesis...?

I think this follows from Ascolo's intervention.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 27, 2010 10:48 pm

illusion principle = meaning and such.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:18 pm

Jakob wrote:
Thesis the pleasure principle + Antithesis the reality principle =
Synthesis repression

Thesis the pain principle + antithesis the illusion-principle
Synthesis...?

I think this follows from Ascolo's intervention.

I have already responded to Ascolo's intervention above.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:22 pm

Where exactly?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Sauwelios » Sat Feb 27, 2010 11:51 pm

Jakob wrote:Where exactly?

viewtopic.php?p=2131048#p2131048
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:01 pm

Suffering as a 'state', need as a 'state'---these concepts are meaningless to me without the complement of something even more primary or primeval than suffering, namely that which what is needed is to sustain or enhance.


I missed that. Well put!

What Ascolo's position might be is that suffering is the most direct way the being has, to consciously relate to his being.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby The Last Man » Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:11 pm

This is the essential question, it seems. Does need presuppose that which needs? Surely psychological need, biological need presupposes the psyche, the biology. But what they are these? In and of themselves, non-living matter, elements and chemicals and molecular relations of energy. Do these 'need'? We can speak of their state of aquisition, that they react in the presence of certain things as if they need them. But this is just basic natural law of electromagnetism, or whatever the case may be. Surely we need not ascribe a will or a primal 'being' to these non-living energies.

It seems that need might only relate to living beings which are capable of suffering from a lack. Being that this lack is the foundation for all striving-behavior, all growth and overcoming, all happiness and satiation and pleasure, then suffering (need) is the basic value, the basis of all living behavior is the avoidance or overcoming of suffering. But does the fact that this system presupposes the living organism itself mean anything? I dont know. At the point where the "living thing", the organism ends and becomes only arrangement of non-living matter, it would seem the the concept of need stops here as well -- and yet we can see that this concept of need would extend right up to this point, and cease at the exact same moment. So there might be no overlap where we could say that the need itself presupposes its opposite, in a prior fashion. I would imagine that values per se only apply to living things, but as for what Ascolo might say, I dont really know. Yet if this is the case, that values only apply meaningfully to living entities, then the idea that need presupposes the needer, value presupposes the valuer, might not amount to a genuine criticism of Ascolo's ideas. It is too bad he cannot answer this question for himself.
It is not the strengths, but the durations of great sentiments that make great men. -Nietzsche

Genius never desires what does not exist. -Kierkegaard

The first and last thing required of genius is the love of truth. -Goethe

The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes. There is in him not only the universality of men, but of all nature. He is the man to whom all things tell their secrets, to whom most happens, and whom least escapes. He understands most things, and those most deeply, because he has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare them with. The genius is he who is conscious of most, and of that most acutely. -Weininger

I don't roll on shabbos. -Walter
User avatar
The Last Man
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:03 am
Location: Here

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby MagsJ » Sun Feb 28, 2010 3:32 pm

Suffering and repression suck, so why go there... having said that, I've been dabbling in narcissism and asceticism this past year gone and it felt kinda good - I think I'll stop before I get to self-flagellation though :lol:

Perhaps the Suffering/repression are warranted as long as they are self-inflicted...
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18746
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby The Last Man » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:25 pm

Nothing at all wrong with a healthy dose of narcissistic asceticism :D
It is not the strengths, but the durations of great sentiments that make great men. -Nietzsche

Genius never desires what does not exist. -Kierkegaard

The first and last thing required of genius is the love of truth. -Goethe

The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes. There is in him not only the universality of men, but of all nature. He is the man to whom all things tell their secrets, to whom most happens, and whom least escapes. He understands most things, and those most deeply, because he has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare them with. The genius is he who is conscious of most, and of that most acutely. -Weininger

I don't roll on shabbos. -Walter
User avatar
The Last Man
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:03 am
Location: Here

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Sun Feb 28, 2010 9:56 pm

Apparently Ascolo was only banned for a week -
was - I dont know if that is still his status.

Being that this lack is the foundation for all striving-behavior, all growth and overcoming, all happiness and satiation and pleasure, then suffering (need) is the basic value,


That can be be seen as untrue by observing assimilating of particles on an inorganic level. Atoms do not evolve into molecules because of need, or do they? If not, need is a derivative concept of something more fundamental, pre organic, certainly prepsychological.

Minerals evolve, as Darwin observed, in the same way as animals.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby The Last Man » Mon Mar 01, 2010 7:55 am

Yes, but I do not think that evolution is the sole indicator where we can draw the line between living and nonliving. All sorts of non-living things evolve, like geologic processes, social dynamics, as you say, minerals. Surely none of these are alive. The problem is to come up with a definition of "life", which is all but impossible. My main point was that, if we assume that this definive line is drawn somewhere between say, micro-organisms and minerals, between cells and the basic elements that compose them, we can (maybe) see how "need" is applicable only to the living organisations, and not the non-living. Granted, non-living things act like they have needs, which I also pointed out, and this is highly problematic.

But all in all, I believe that Ascolo was talking about animal life, consciousnesses which are capable of suffering in the way that suffering is known in its intelligibility. Suffering/pain/lack of needs, in the sense of animals/humans which do suffer in the way that we commonly think of suffering. I think that Ascolo was speaking physiologically and psychologically about complex living organisms like men and animals, and I do not think he was trying to make a case that *all* life, or all of existence, "suffers" in the way that we commonly think of suffering. But I could be wrong.

Assuming his point that animal/man suffers basically, that his activities and pleasures and happinesses are all guided by this state of constant need/lack/suffering, he was saying that all human activity, psychologies and values are derived from, are reactions against suffering. That the common values and happinesses of man, his personality and psyche, are reactions against "suffering" and are illusory, that these psyche's and values and physiologies conceal a deeper essential structure which is nothing like their surface appearance is, I believe, his point. But once again, I could be wrong.
It is not the strengths, but the durations of great sentiments that make great men. -Nietzsche

Genius never desires what does not exist. -Kierkegaard

The first and last thing required of genius is the love of truth. -Goethe

The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes. There is in him not only the universality of men, but of all nature. He is the man to whom all things tell their secrets, to whom most happens, and whom least escapes. He understands most things, and those most deeply, because he has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare them with. The genius is he who is conscious of most, and of that most acutely. -Weininger

I don't roll on shabbos. -Walter
User avatar
The Last Man
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:03 am
Location: Here

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Tue Mar 02, 2010 2:25 pm

Let me put it this way:
Not all my actions are based on suffering, or lack.

Some of them are based on overflowing.

Ponder this for a while - I say that in general -
as I move on to say that overflowing is more in line with the problematic concept of being itself - (why being rather than not being?) than any lack. If all there would be was negative existence, then lack would make sense as a basic value. In an existent universe, it doesn't.

I refer all the way back to my response about the shadow of God to explain my conception of the ubiquity of suffering.
I wonder if I can agree with Nietzsche that there is no cumulative of suffering - I am inclined to because suffering marks so very clearly the subject who is suffering.

In that sense it can be seen as a primordial value - it is definitely a principium individuationis.
But then, as Dionysos demonstrates, suffering is only a form of rapture.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Tue Mar 02, 2010 4:05 pm

If we use Freud's early terms "pleasure principle" and "reality principle", we can formulate the process of repression as follows:

Thesis the pleasure principle + Antithesis the reality principle =
Synthesis repression

I just read something which complicates the idea of this synthesis. It also has a very direct relevance to Ascolo's suffering concept and my idea of pleasure and pain as different forms of rapture, although I cannot see the consequences of it now but I still want to quote it, from Wiki:

    Jouissance

    This sexual connotation (i.e. orgasm) lacking in the English word "enjoyment", and is therefore left untranslated in English editions of the works of Jacques Lacan.[1]. In his Seminar "The Ethics of Psychoanalysis" (1959-1960) Lacan develops his concept of the opposition of jouissance and pleasure. The pleasure principle, according to Lacan, functions as a limit to enjoyment: it is the law that commands the subject to 'enjoy as little as possible'. At the same time the subject constantly attempts to transgress the prohibitions imposed on his enjoyment, to go beyond the pleasure principle. Yet the result of transgressing the pleasure principle, according to Lacan, is not more pleasure but pain, since there is only a certain amount of pleasure that the subject can bear. Beyond this limit, pleasure becomes pain, and this 'painful principle' is what Lacan calls jouissance. (Dylan Evans). Thus jouissance is suffering (Ethics).

    In his Seminar "Encore" (1972-1973) Lacan states that jouissance is essentially phallic. That is, insofar as jouissance is sexual it is phallic, meaning that it does not relate to the other as such. Lacan admits, however, that there is a specifically feminine jouissance, a supplementary jouissance, which is beyond the phallus, a jouissance of the Other. This feminine jouissance is ineffable, for both women and men may experience it but know nothing about it.

    In his seminar "The Other Side of Psychoanalysis" (1969-1970) Lacan introduced the concept of surplus-jouissance (French 'plus-de-jouir') inspired by Marx's concept of surplus-value: objet petit a is the excess of jouissance which has no use value, and which persists for the mere sake of jouissance.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Mar 02, 2010 6:24 pm

For some reason, I'm completely put off by 'French philosophy'.

Anyway, Freud later replaced the pleasure and reality principles by (not precisely respectively) Eros and the death instinct (a.k.a. the life instinct and Thanatos, respectively). I now think the infant's narcissistic project, which expresses itself through Eros, is already morbid:

    Parental care makes childhood a period of privileged freedom from the domination of the reality-principle, thus permitting and promoting an early blossoming, in an unreal atmosphere, of infantile sexuality and the pleasure-principle. Thus sheltered from reality by parental care, infantile sexuality---Eros or the life instinct---conceives the dream of narcissistic omnipotence in a world of love and pleasure.
    [Brown, Life Against Death, chapter IX.]

I now see the life instinct as a will to union, and the death instinct as a will to deny separation. Denied separation is imaginary union. However, real union, though the objective opposite of separation, would be no different for the subject. The death instinct seeks the absence of all feeling of struggle; and union would entail that absence. The only thing that can be felt is a change of distance. Union must therefore always be resisted by the will to separation (in Jungian terms, Phobos (in the sense of "hate" rather than "fear")). But perhaps it's rather a case of separation being resisted by the will to union (Eros). As Nietzsche says, we love our desire, not what is desired. Translated to psychoanalysis this means: we take pleasure in our will to union, not in union itself. As Jim Morrison said, when sex dies it becomes Climax. Climax is the feeling of the dying, the ebbing away, of Eros; there is no feeling of its being-dead.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:02 pm

I think I see what you're getting at, though I'm put off by this kind of extensive systematization of terms I'm not familiar to begin with so it took me some time to really read it.

I found an opening into "French philosophy" in Zizek, who is a Heideggerian.
Jouissance is an interesting concept set next to what Ascolo Parodites said - I understand if you want to keep this pure in your own terms.

I'm for the idea that a certain limit of pleasure is allowed in childhood. Poets like Blake must have had repressed childhoods - not repression of suffering, but of pleasure. As such, all great pleasure becomes jouissance, hence, Satan.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:09 am

Jakob wrote:I'm for the idea that a certain limit of pleasure is allowed in childhood. Poets like Blake must have had repressed childhoods - not repression of suffering, but of pleasure. As such, all great pleasure becomes jouissance, hence, Satan.

"Repression of suffering"?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby MagsJ » Fri Mar 05, 2010 12:47 am

The Last Man wrote:Nothing at all wrong with a healthy dose of narcissistic asceticism :D

Haha, thanks :wink: Are you toying with any isms yourself, or just winging it?
The possibility of anything we can imagine existing is endless and infinite

I haven't got the time to spend the time reading something that is telling me nothing, as I will never be able to get that time back, and I may need it for something at some point in time. Wait! What?

--MagsJ
User avatar
MagsJ
The Londonist
 
Posts: 18746
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 2:59 pm
Location: London, NC1

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Fri Mar 05, 2010 9:27 pm

Repressed memories of suffering I mean
Memories of pleasure are also repressed.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby The Last Man » Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:57 am

Magsj wrote:
The Last Man wrote:Nothing at all wrong with a healthy dose of narcissistic asceticism :D

Haha, thanks :wink: Are you toying with any isms yourself, or just winging it?


Naw I just wing it mostly. I don't hang my hat on any 'isms', rather I try to sift through them in order to extract the useful psychological or philosophical pieces and elements contained within.
It is not the strengths, but the durations of great sentiments that make great men. -Nietzsche

Genius never desires what does not exist. -Kierkegaard

The first and last thing required of genius is the love of truth. -Goethe

The ideal genius, who has all men within him, has also all their preferences and all their dislikes. There is in him not only the universality of men, but of all nature. He is the man to whom all things tell their secrets, to whom most happens, and whom least escapes. He understands most things, and those most deeply, because he has the greatest number of things to contrast and compare them with. The genius is he who is conscious of most, and of that most acutely. -Weininger

I don't roll on shabbos. -Walter
User avatar
The Last Man
Philosopher
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 9:03 am
Location: Here

Re: The Dialectics of Repression.

Postby Jakob » Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:58 pm

we take pleasure in our will to union, not in union itself.

Here you come very close to my understanding of all motivation as the lust for Truth. Truth I have in that context elaborately explained in terms of union.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 7140
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

PreviousNext

Return to Psychology and Mind



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: MSN [Bot]