Sigmund Freud determined all human motivations contain a sexual component. The oral, then anal fixations of children and later phallic interests, beginning at a very early age, were focused on satisfying bodily needs. Many psychological problems, neuroses, occur because sexual impulses are repressed. Through psychoanalysis S.F. guided his repressed patients to realize the healthy need for normal active sexual behavior.
Freud, though, cautioned that excessive sexual activity interferes with the development of healthy social relationships, that strong friendships and sound decision making, adulthood essentially, depends on tempering sexual behaviors.
This could explain, I guess, while some of our politicians behave like adolescents.
In the winter of his eighteenth year this young man fell madly in love (well, it was a serious crush anyway). The object of his unrequited affection was a demure sweet young lady who turned the young man, usually easygoing and affable, into a tongue-tied moron (or so he thought and was in fact true).
The episode was simply reflective of the young man’s nature. He conjured imaginings of romantic scenarios; of heroic stances he might take. He lived in a world of fictional narratives reinforced by the heroic storylines he regularly indulged: good triumphs, tragedy is overcome.
It would seem in retrospect such an imaginative reality would soon be repressed but it was maintained far longer than it might have been by avoiding unpleasant confrontation, keeping a distance from uncertain challenges and living in an (overly) protective home environment. As a college student our young dreamer immersed himself in studies of an impersonal nature, solitary endeavors not requiring excessive personal connections. He had friends of course. College life teems with unassuming young people of an accepting nature, all thriving in an essentially responsibility free environment.
Eventually, over time, even an impractical dreamer will have to face harsh realities. The awakening for our young man came with the threat posed by the draft lottery and the likelihood of involuntary military service. Basic training was eye opening. The young man found himself verbally assaulted. Name calling the likes of which he had never previously encountered (but guessed often referred to perverse sexual acts) was common.
Military service didn’t cure the young man, didn’t redirect him toward a more functional pragmatism. Even now as he passes middle age the man finds himself entertaining flights of fancy. He has somehow been able to navigate through life being sufficiently useful as not to be a particular burden on society, you know, has basically paid his own way.
It’s good to know, I guess, that sometimes life provides a path for those who need to live in an alternative reality.
I’ve been thinking lately about the multitudes of good and sincere people in the world who have arrived at dramatically conflicting views as to the nature of reality.
Most all of us rely on what we consider to be unimpeachable support sources for our views and usually a contingent of like-minded others that reinforce our beliefs. The evangelical Christian, the Qanon conspiracy buff and the liberal mainstreamer will tend to approach daily occurrences with sets of premises and then conclusions that are quite different. Such conflicting perspectives are the stuff of the social divisiveness manifesting itself these days; the dilemma of free thought in a free society free from coercive oversight, I guess.
I have no answers other than responding with patient tolerance in the knowledge that most everyone deserves respectful acknowledgement of their usually carefully considered views. The hope is that we can all spot disinformation when it presents itself. Hopefully, we can think past the response of the recently interviewed lady asked why she embraces her position on a current controversial idea. ‘I know it’s not true’, she said, ‘but it’s consistent with my beliefs.’
I’ve been reading about knowledge boundaries and the idea of island as metaphor. Within the island, our body of knowledge, we pursue lines of thought, traverse the island, and eventually reach the shore beyond which lies the unknowable. The island grows as the breadth of our knowledge increases, the shoreline expands, and we are confronted with more mysteries and incomprehensive considerations that, when the island was smaller, were beyond our wildest imaginings. I guess the idea is, the more we know the more we don’t know.
For those of us who are not inclined to add dilemmas to the one’s we already struggle with, perhaps limiting knowledge is a preferrable strategy. We gain the peace of unquestioning acceptance of things simply being the way they are as opposed to living the uncertainty of constantly seeking answers; the problem the chronically curious must deal with.
Maybe it doesn’t have to be either/or. I can appreciate peaceful contemplation and still entertain intermittent bouts of curiosity. I think, these days, my island is still slowly growing. I’m just not venturing to the beach as often as I used to.
Thinking lately about dentistry: whether those who pursue such an occupation may harbor a sadistic inclination.
Having recently received a new set of dentures after undergoing the physical trauma such a procedure entails. The experience has me wondering whether ulterior motives a practitioner might have, beyond the lucrative salary, might be in play.
One hopes a medical professional would extend a benevolence toward her victims, but I don’t know if such is necessarily the case.
I’ve been thinking about the George Orwell novel 1984, how the totalitarian regime in the book implemented catch phrases to secure the minds of the populace. ‘War is Peace’ is used to establish a permanent enemy, a scapegoat, that can be blamed for any and all ills that befall the citizenry. ‘Freedom is Slavery’ discourages individualism tribalism in order to keep everyone bound to the collective. ‘Ignorance is Strength’ encourages the subservient populace to forego intellectual reflection, follow the dictates of those in power, not think about things to hard and they will realize contented peace. The message is, I guess, that given such ideas along with sufficient deterrents a totalitarian regime turns people into sheep without them realizing it.
Sounds familiar, doesn’t it; we owe it to ourselves to step up, encourage opposition, reaffirm our freedoms and checks on excessive power. The democratic media voices critical commentary daily; let’s make sure we support it.
It occurs to me the single thing common to all humanity is the desire to deflect, in some way, mundane reality; to find meaning beyond routine daily existence. Aldous Huxley calls such an accomplishment transcendence. Whether it be of a spiritual nature or other special interests, hobbies, travel or whatever the desire to transcend is primary motivator.
Is such pursuit transcendence or simply distraction? If the latter, what are we distracting ourselves from? Could it be the existential fear of having to find our true values: the fear of living an authentic life?
Or maybe we realize we don’t need to get all philosophical about doing what we enjoy, for whatever the reason may be. Maybe making up and playing a board game may be sufficient irony in response to such questions.
I’ve been thinking lately that days, individual days, sometimes exude a quality of existence that transcends and imposes itself upon individual experience. A day may extend its identity to whole communities of individuals who suffer or exalt according to the qualities the day imposes.
One may awake, for instance, to sunrise beauty, freshness in the air promising positive experiences to come. As one walks through the neighborhood people smile and wave, friendly conversations with total strangers occur. All is right with the world.
Or the overcast morning weighs heavy upon one’s soul, extra effort is required to accomplish the most basic of tasks. People in the streets are sullen, unapproachable, lost within themselves.
Such days, pleasant or painful, impose themselves upon us. Our very being is captive to the quality of the day.
I have a friend who is a school administrator. Although he never complains, it’s apparent the pressures of the job are often trying. He told me once that the job requires him to wear different hats by which I assume he meant the need, sometimes, to act the policeman, other times to accommodate with a smile undeserved criticism, and so forth.
As I think about this, hat wearing, in fact, often carries meaning beyond its basic head-covering function. Political affiliations may be conveyed, products advertised, and humorous familial contexts presented. These presentations of identity along with the desired in-group associations the wearer wishes to convey may also carry an accompanying negative reaction that the hat wearer may not desire. Repulsion and hostility being real possibilities.
So, thinking about it, I intend to be careful what I put on my head.
I’ve been thinking about the plethora of acronyms we all must keep track of these days to stay even remotely in touch with what’s going on in the world. For instance: The MAGA folks have enabled DOGE to fire NIH staff and medical researchers and are pressuring universities to cut DEI programs and suppress support for BLM protests. Enabled by congressional majorities MAGA has exacerbated natural disasters by cutting FEMA staff, has created ICE to arrest and deport BRCs, cut funding to PBS and NPR.
It’s all very difficult to follow. Because of my ADD leading to OCD and, I fear, PTSD, I’m finding it hard to decide on BLT’s or PB&J for lunch.
deideismusings 