Psykoanalys, det omedvetna

Sigmund Freud grundar psykoanalysen i konceptet om det omedvetna. Det freudianska omedvetna kan förklaras illustrativt som en behållare som befinner sig någonstans på den mänskliga psykiska konstitutionens karta och där allting vi tror att vi har glömt, det vi bokstavligen talat inte är medvetna om, eller vill dölja för andra och oss själva, hamnar till sist. Freud utvecklar en teori, till exempel om bortträngning, för att beskriva hur upplevelse och minnen som vi glömmer ”hamnar” i det omedvetna. Orsaken till bortträngningen är att människan enligt Freud genom en rad psykiska försvarsmekanismer, om vilka teorin utvecklades av Freuds dotter, Anna Freud, väljer att mörklägga obehagliga erfarenheter så att säga. Till bortträngningens teori hör även synen om att det bortträngda kommer tillbaka i en omvandlad form, det vill säga att de obehagliga associationerna inte längre är påtagliga men att de ändå, såsom omedvetna, påverkar oss och skapar obehag vars orsak vi inte riktigt kan peka på eller förklara rationellt. Till exempel kan vissa situationer kännas oförklarligt obehagliga, eller att vissa handlingar känns påtvingade att utföras av en okänd orsak, eller att en förlamande rädsla av tillsynes oförklarliga skäl kan utlösas i kontakt med någonting som för andra människor synes ofarligt och även banalt. Freud finner att alla människor på mer eller mindre påtagligt sätt är bärare av symptom av bortträngningen, helt enkelt för att det omedvetna antas vara en ofrånkomlig del av människans psykiska konstitution. Inte minst är symptomen olika från person till person för att det omedvetna formas helt utifrån personliga livserfarenheter....

A point less

() "Expand and see the whole video" an advertisement suggests... Expand and see - we are indeed debasing all the existentially important notions in the quadratic boredom of the screen. (That! infinity Malevich's imbecile object of the divine perception, black or white...) What you now stare at, is utterly limited although it will take you to the places you never knew you are demanded to like (since there is no way to dislike; the choice is not in question anymore as nobody and forevermore knows not; One chooses "Because it is my will!"). Of course, we live inside our heads, we are isolated form the world with our headphones and we isolate ourselves in the social communities from the uncanny intrusion of the other's real presence (but this is why we have sex for fucking real no matter how many tons of porn does this for us while we indulge in expanding and seeing - an advertisement)); we throw our pearls before the pigs on the blogs (or are you a dog?)....

() Today I was advised to "provoke" a function in the software....

() When the tool instantiates itself as the master of meaning... Only the master who hold the tool is indeed a creator of meaning

() The condition of the existence today is indeed corresponding to the final scene in the last episode of Patrick McGoohan's notorious The Prisoner series entitled Fall Out; the subject announcing its own disappearance in the absolute form, the "I", which is put on repeat until it accelerates and finally bursts in the most brilliant orgasmic ending of ejecting the rockets on their way to no-where    




 

Where we really are and think or, the science of the real and (all other) metaphysics

Every matter of interpretation is a discourse of the unconscious. Hence any science which cannot asure a method of clear and distinct seeing - this, particularly, is mathemathics - is a projection of the scientist's symptom, and the effort of the passionate work injected in its investigations is the way to enjoy it. This is a perversion of the science of the real. As such, it is still a metaphysics. Not a speculation but an interpretation of a personal affect - as this very reasoning is this too... The real science however, in the Lacanian sense, which for that matter can be doubed Cartesian or even Platonic idealism of mathematisation, has nothing of the consciousness in it, that is, no affect which poses an obstacle to the knowledge of the real. Perhaps, it rather 'correspond' to Merleau-Ponty's idea of chiasm... The real strictly speaking, is the domain of the knowledge of the subject of the unconscious; knowing not to know, as Lacan put it. How are we then to (re)present it (what resist symbolisation), indeed anything of the world if this is the condition of knowledge - an endles signification chain? The Lacanian answer is: not representation (fails) but: mathematisation. From this point of view it is more likely that our marvelous computers actually resemble more of what is out there, the inductive method per se, than we ever can deduce from the interpretation of the experience (the affect) and observation (the misrecognition of the flip side, the blind spot).... However, both the experience and the observation works, WHERE WE THINK WE ARE (not....

The Sea of Madness

Navigating the Narrenschiff is an amusing adventure. Ahoi!

Come closer

... in a drunken night Bataille encounters a prostitute called Madame Edwarda. She reveals: “I am GOD” ...