[lit-ideas] Re: New Program in Psychoanalysis and Culture
- From: "David Wright" <wright@xxxxxxxx>
- To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:43:00 -0500
Mike:
>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...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.
I think you've just answered the |acting contrary to culture| question.
Cultures are altered at a macrotic level by profoundly significant, yet
generally localised phenomena. These may take the form of a natural
disaster -- we can't deny the impact of The Flood -- or, more commonly
in the post-civilisation world, through the influence of other cultures
-- the Jews could not have become the long-suffering Chosen People if
they had not encountered the Babylonians.
Lastly, microtic change occurs in a formal democracy via legislation.
This, however, does not really change the culture viscerally. We may not
be permitted to kick a person from a (sub)culture we find repulsive, but
that doesn't stop us from doing so, whether actually or metaphorically.
Check this out: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/23/
I think you'd enjoy both lecture & book. Also, Doris Lessing's Prisons
We Choose to Live Inside.
Eric:
>By stating that _Genius_ was kabbalistic, I merely intended to state
>that Bloom arranges his discussion of the various genii in groups
>that correspond to the Zohar.
Nonetheless, Bloom was significantly influenced by Kabbalah, Gnosticism,
and the notion of secular religion. Perhaps I should have said
(small-'G') god-centric. I suspect Bloom elevated Freud to such a
paramessianic status because psychoanalysis relies so heavily upon an
intellectually palatable mythology of its own.
>The opposing view is Freud's, who stated that a neurosis is a private
>religion. It's interesting that many of us note the power of belief
>(in placebos, politics, cures, catharsis, redemption, whatever) while
>at the same time denying the content of those beliefs.
>Yet is there such a thing as "belief" without the content of the
>belief?
Sure there is. In fact, belief usually denies, or at best is patently
unfamiliar with, the very content upon which it is based. Most if not
all of us are what we are, believe what we believe because someone else
told us so. It provides purpose. It whispers sweetly in our ears,
congratulating us on our possession of some great secret. But, when the
secret teachings don't jibe with our cultural mores they are altered,
ignored, or explained away. In the end we resort to worshiping ourselves
as created by our culture. The Judeo-Christian God is a petty,
vindictive, nasty piece of work. Somehow, though, He has been recreated
in the image of the beneficent Father. However, He'll still send you to
Hell for masturbating, eating lobster, or simply denying His existence,
not that Hell is biblical -- not that the Bible is biblical.
wishing your name was Elwy,
d.
--
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
Other related posts:
