[lit-ideas] Re: New Program in Psychoanalysis and Culture

DW:
>>Regarding culture, I remain unconvinced, to be polite, that anyone stands 
>>outside of culture.  I have as liitle respect for the most agreeable Humanist 
>>that merely regurgitates the ideas of his guru as I do for the autocrat that 
>>is capable of not a whit less.<<

I agree with this totally, wholly and completely.  But then cultures do change, 
don't they?  How does that happen if we are nothing more than our culture?  How 
does an individual ever begin to stand outside her culture and act contrary to 
it, even subversive to it if we are nothing more than our culture -- which is a 
tenet or mine, btw.  This is a question that has long plagued me.  Cultures, of 
course, are never monolithic.  They are invariably composed of disparate 
peoples with disparate needs thrown together through historical events.  But, 
given time, out of that disparateness comes a way of living together which I 
would call a culture.  And I think this coming-together can and must happen 
planetarily -- I like the term "planetarily", but that's probably just my 
homeboy culture -- if we people types hope to progress into the next 
millennium.  

Mike Geary
Universe

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: David Wright 
  To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
  Sent: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 6:28 PM
  Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: New Program in Psychoanalysis and Culture


  I'll concede that Freud was a reasonably talented essayist, if one accepts 
that his supportiing arguments are valid.  Fundamentally though, he tends to 
cite himself...hardly reasonable argumentation.  And, while I appreciate Bloom, 
his kabbalistic writing must, perforce, be God-centric.  I could analyse 
writing from an astrological perspective with just as much authority, not that 
either produces reasonable analyses...unless faerie tales compose an essential 
part of your mythos.

  Regarding culture, I remain unconvinced, to be polite, that anyone stands 
outside of culture.  I have as liitle respect for the most agreeable Humanist 
that merely regurgitates the ideas of his guru as I do for the autocrat that is 
capable of not a whit less.  Nonetheless, even if we accept that Siggie was a 
decent, or divine, wordsmith, it does not logically follow that his ideas 
possess much worth.  I ignore, of course, the fact that if one believes in 
Psychoanalysis or God, it is likely that shamanistic practice based upon those 
beliefs will likely result in a successful amelioration of any perceived 
problem.

  Opium, Religion, Marx,
  d.





    Eric Yost: 

    David Wright wrote: Is Freud still read as anything more than an 
    amachronistic, literary writer exploring the human condition? Not 
    that literature has failed to explore the aforementioned problem, 
    but Freud possessed only moderate literary skills, and abandoned 
    logical inquiry altogether.


    Harold Bloom expresses an opposing opinion in his kabbalistic 
    survey, _Genius_. He considers Freud the greatest contemporary 
    essayist after Emerson.

    That people would glom Freud's theories and adapt them to their 
    political agendas -- as Koenigsberg does -- probably would not have 
    surprised him. Freud's "hermeneutics of suspicion" allows anyone to 
    start a cottage industry on the lecture circuit. You get to pretend 
    to be an outsider with superior knowledge of a culture, standing 
    above it, and able to supply cures to all ills.



    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
    digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html


  -- 
  Be Yourself @ mail.com!
  Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
  Get a Free Account at www.mail.com!

Other related posts: