"I gotta work out. I keep saying it all the time. I keep saying I gotta start working out. It's been about two months since I've worked out. And I just don't have the time. Which uh..is odd. Because I have the time to go out to dinner. And uh..and watch tv. And get a bone density test. And uh.. try to figure out what my phone number spells in words." - Ellen DeGeneres
***
On Reason and Freud:
[Ed: This post is (kind of) followed up by Balderdash: On Freud, valid forms of Critique and valid types of Data]
Me: reading your posts gives me a headache
Someone: if i simplify it too much it's more open to misinterpretation
i try to anticipate somewhat counterarguments
Me: because people will actually understand what you're trying to say?
Someone: oh, yes and no
it's precisely th taken-for-granted undersatnding that needs to be questioned
i had a headache in questioning my own takne-for-granted understanding too
Me: so basically you managed to mindfuck yourself
and now all is good
Someone: why do you say i mindfucked myself?
im perfectly alright
Me: ...
Someone: and "all is good"???
look, gabriel. the easiest thing to do in the world is for people to simply ignore your posts
because...they understand it
"understand"
Me: what is easy is not necessarily good
conversely, what is hard is not necessarily good either
Someone: i can understand your POV, and i can ignore it too
so, what is good, is still not answered
Me: what is good is what is true
Someone: there are different notions of truth
Me: only in people's minds
objective reality does not change
Someone: i am completely conversant with, and still beholden to scientific truth
and what, precisely is "objective" reality?
Me: that would depend on what we are talking about
Someone: ok, in empirical science there is a fixed notion of objective truth
one can know everything about an object
study its chemcial composition etc.
Me: not true
and in any case you can always screw around with universal skepticism
Someone: i don't deny, within science, its "objective" truth
but when it comes to social constructions...
of human beings
that's a matter for debate
Me: that depends on what you mean by social construction
Someone: yes, race, being one
gender too
Me: not true
there is plenty of evidence that gender is objectively real
and race has quite a bit too, but it's a more politically sensitive subject so people don't usually talk about it
Someone: there is a biological basis for sex, yes, X and Y chromosomes and all that
but how do we experience gender?
Me: what do you mean by experiencing gender
men and women are wired differently
generally
Someone: yes
and it can also be, some men are more women than women can be
more "feminine"
how does a man appear as a man??
or woman as woman??
Me: some men are more women than some women can be
no one disputes these things
Someone: is sex = gender?
Me: race and gender do not consist of isolated and distinct islands
they are clusters along continua
sex is a large part of gender
Someone: one can have male sex organs and appear completely as a gendered woman
gendered, as a woman
human beings are gendered as they grow into adulthood
recall: the south african athlete who was recently disputed wrt her gender
Me: socialisation complements intrinsic sex
recall that Caster Semenya is a hermaphrodite
and that despite being raised female, she is very manly
Someone: yes
she appears masculine in many respects
Me: so your point is?
Someone: whatever her biological sex is, determinate or not, is quite independent of her gender
we perceive her gender depending on how we construct "masculine" and "feminine"
Me: we view her as a manly woman
Someone: yes, her higher testosterone levels make her muscles more developed
make her frame larger
Me: it's not just her physical appearance
it's also her behavior
Someone: but if we allow our construction of "woman" or "femininity" to have a wider range...
and likewise masculinity
it's like she cannot appear properly as a person without fixing her sex and gender
we cannot get over the "natural" idea that femininity must conform to XX chromosomes or certain physical characteristics
i am the first to admit i have problems myself
im trying to become aware of it myself too
allow people to exist in all their differences and multiplicity
Me: so what range of "woman" or "femininity" do you want?
won't your range be challenged?
unless your claim is that we should abandon categories altogether
but categories are something that people value. it's a cognitive tool that acts as a market of identity. by getting rid of it you are shortchanging the vast majority
just because some people do not resemble archetypes does not mean we should get rid of these archetypes
and it doesn't mean that these people are somehow bad or evil
as someone who does not adhere to archaic norms of proper behavior, I do not let others' standards affect me
but likewise I do not impose on them and insist their standards change for my sake
Someone: to put it rather reductively, "categories" have value in fixing people, trapping them, restricting freedom unnecessarily
Me: to recognise difference is not the same as to oppress difference
that's only if you let the categories fix you
and/or if you only want to belong to one or a few categories
people want to feel a sense of belonging
which is why they find categories to belong to
and they value them
Someone: yes, yes
Me: group solidarity is important to people
which is why people identify as feminist, progressive etc
which are themselves categories
Someone: passionate subjection or attachment to subjection--we desire a limited submissive existence, better than nothing
like how no one wants to become stateless
but you claim too much when you say "only if you let the categories fix you"
it's not a matter of your own powers to prevent others from fixing you
language doesn't belong to you
categories don't belogn to you
you seek your existence in already-given langauge and fixed notions of who you can be
namely: race, gender, ethnicity etc.
you can cry and bemoan and wail as hard and loudly as you like
Me: I am for freedom of thought
I do not presume to dictate what others think of me
you can choose with what you identify
Someone: but somehow there will be ways for others to capture you in certain ways
they may not mean to, but they do
Me: ok lor
big deal
"One should respect public opinion insofar as is necessary to avoid starvation and keep out of prison, but anything that goes beyond this is voluntary submission to an unnecessary tyranny."
Someone: as i say, you claim too much for a "free human individual subject"
before you become free you must subject yourself--become a citizen or PR or whatever
Me: I respect individual autonomy
Someone: you have an enlightenment notion of the free human
descartes' era
Me: I like to think of myself as a Renaissance Man, but I uphold the values of the Enlightenment
Someone: but we have "moved on"
Darwin, Freud
Lacan
First, copernicus showed that man is not centre of universe
then darwin showed that man is not centre of evolution
then freud showed that man is not master in his own house
it took lacan to bring out freud's "discovery'/revolution fully
hence he says "return to freud"
Me: upholding Enlightenment values does not mean that Man is the centre of the universe of evolution
that's because Freud was a fraud
and people had to "reinterpret" him so he made sense
there's a reason most psychology ignores freud
Someone: freud was a fraud because you presupposed him to be so
Me: no
it's because he talked rubbish
Someone: you had already made up your mind that he's rubbish
i used to think so too
Me: no
I looked at the evidence
and what he said
and found they were different
I feel like I'm talking to a Christian
"Why do you hate God?"
"You've already made up your mind that God does not exist"
Someone: look, i think freud's claim is precisely that empirical scientific evidence is insufficient
to diagnose/cure/treat, in his times, hysteria
Me: so we just sit in our couch and talk nonsense?
hysteria was nonsense
though it did give us the vibrator
Someone: let me ask you, you must believe that cognitive neuroscience can explain everything about the human brain and behaviour and culture
Me: no I don't
but just because you don't know everything doesn't mean you can make up rubbish
that's like whitewashing a fence by painting it black
the point is to increase your understanding
not give up
Someone: besides "rubbish" is that all your criticism is worth?
how is freud's work rubbish?
and, before we get lost in this, it's not simply freud, mind you
Nietzsche, and following, Foucault
Me: modern psychology recognises he was talking rubbish
for example, the elektra and oedipus complexes don't exist
or the oral and anal fixations
he made up an alleged history of child development
which was completely speculative
and obsessed with sex
he made up an alleged history of human history
which has been shown to be completely wrong
and sex obsessed, don't forget
Someone: one needs to read freud with care
i haven't had all teh time to read all his works yet
but his ideas about our consciousness are no less useful or valid
Me: i.e. ignore what he was saying
and "re-interpret" what he said so it makes sense
in other words, like christian apologists who manage to twist the words of the bible so it means whatever they want
I agree with the future of an illusion
but that's because he wasn't making stuff up about history or human development
Someone: feminists ought to hate him for prescribing that women are fixated on the phallus etc.
but for all that they still use his ideas, with modifications (eg. Melanie Klein's school of object-relations)
Me: that's because they talk rubbish also
so they're natural allies
Someone: i think freud and lacan probably mark the stopping point of how far empirical science can penetrate the human mind in understanding all its manifest behaviours
both of them trained as medical doctors
and very concerned with treating disorders of one sort or another
i also think, that they have insights into how culture can produce brain disorders
he believed whole-heartedly in the empirical medical sceince
Me: "HJ Eysenck claimed that Freud set Psychiatry back one hundred years, consistently misdiagnosed his patients, fraudulently misrepresented case histories and that what is true in Freud is not new and what is new in Freud is not true"
Someone: i think there is truth in that his diagnoses and therapies were not successful
but lacan, who tries to be faithful to freud, saying that freud himself doesn't even realise the full extent of his discoveries
Me: this is like nostradamus's fans
who reinterpret his prophecies
Someone: psychiatry...foucault has alot to say about it too
i don't think one has to abandon scientific rationality, atheism, and anti-superstition if one takes psychoanalysis seriously
Me: psychoanalysis is very speculative
do you abandon scientific rationality, atheism, and anti-superstition if one takes homoepathy seriously?
Someone: not seemingly less than cutting edge of physics
superstring
Me: string theory is laughed at by many non-string theorists
Someone: much your disparagement of cultural studies and literary theory works on smearing
Me: no
it works on looking at what has been written
Someone: i suppose i'll soon enter into one of your caricatures of those who have "succumbed" to pomo and Christian bullshit
Me: I do not draw caricatures
I let what people write and say speak for themselves
if a Christian used the usual sort of arguments against you, what would you say, given that you use many of the same ones yourself?
Someone: unfortunately, much as i would have liked to, i do not have sufficiently advanced understanding of theory yet to distance myself from christian apology
Me: ???
Someone: i don't see myself as employing the same sort of defence as christian apology
you like to ally ppl who disagree with you with naive unthinking "fundamentalist" fanatical believers
i probably shouldn't have spent such an inordinate amount of time "defending" psychoanalysis
there are many other things worthy of my attention
Me: let me show you some of the many examples
freud was a fraud because you presupposed him to be so <-> god does not exist because you assume he does not
i used to think so too <-> i used to defy god also
empirical scientific evidence is insufficient <-> reason is insufficient. you need god
you must believe that cognitive neuroscience can explain everything about the human brain and behaviour and culture <-> you must believe that science can explain everything about the world
one needs to read freud with care <-> one needs to read the bible with care
both of them trained as medical doctors. and very concerned with treating disorders of one sort or another <-> luke says that he wanted to record faithfully everything that happened
he believed whole-heartedly in the empirical medical sceince <-> the apostles believed that jesus was resurrected
i don't think one has to abandon scientific rationality, atheism, and anti-superstition if one takes psychoanalysis seriously <-> i don't think one has to abandon scientific rationality and anti-superstition if one takes the bible seriously
Someone: yes, insofar as against your rigidly rationalist-empiricist viewpoint goes i tried to make a claim on behalf of possible truth of psychoanalysis
but i suspect i might also have put up a similar defence on behalf of any theoretical scientific speculation such as string theory for which experimental/empircal evidence is sorely lacking
like, existence of extraterrestrial life
Me: the existence of extraterrestrial life is a possibility
not a certainty
Someone: am i any less able to maintain any sort of critical distance towards what i defend?
Me: if you aren't rationalist-empiricist, how do you determine which truth claims are correct?
Someone: one can argue for a limited range of truth-claims for a novel or poem or artwork
correctness is not necessarily singular
Me: not necessarily
but often it is
Someone: like i said i don't claim to have the last word on psychoanalysis. i'm far from a deep understanding of it
i was simply making a case for it
anyone could make a case a la christian apologetics if they tried to learn it
i do think there remains alot to be said for how the human mind is affected by culture, somewhat independently if biology
and the things that remain to be said, very interestingly, are in cultural theory
Me: there are some gems here and there
Someone: i think you also wouldn't deny christianity has its own limited 'truths' to make as well
allegorical maybe
but no less truths
Me: that's a cheap fudge
in that case nothing can ever be false
as descartes pointed out, even if a deceiving demon was painting false pictures of reality to him, at least the colours of the paint would be real
that's "truth" in a very shallow, superficial way
Someone else: "My brother is a fan of Freud; I have contemplated disowning him - my brother that is. Except that, that in Freudian terms, will be taken as an expression of my repressed sexuality."