Freud and The Continuing Evolution of Psychoanalysis: The Seduction Theory Controversy, Masson, Malcolm, Object Relations, Janet, Klein, Fairbairn...

I said that I would re-read Janet Malcolm's book, 'In The Freud Archives' (1984) and I am in the process of doing that. It was about 15 years ago the last time I read it. The book is a composite of two articles Malcolm wrote in The New Yorker in 1983.

Malcolm's book, similarly to Masson's own book with different editorial opinions, 'Final Analysis: The Making and Unmaking of a Psychoanalyst', 1990, documents Masson's 'fall out of grace' with the Psychoanalytic World after he had risen almost right to the top of the Psychoanalytic hierarchy as Executive Director of The Freud Archives -- behind only Anna Freud and Kurt Eissler in perceived power and status.

.............................................................................

Sigmund Freud Archives
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The Sigmund Freud Archives mainly consist of a trove of documents housed at the US Library of Congress [1] and in the former residence of Sigmund Freud during the last year of his life at 20 Maresfield Gardens in northwest London. They were at the center of a complicated scandal which is described in Janet Malcolm's book In the Freud Archives. Jeffrey Masson writes about it in Chapter Nine Disillusions of his book Final Analysis.

After World War II Dr. Kurt Eissler (1909-1999) and a small group of psychoanalysts who knew Sigmund Freud personally, including Heinz Hartmann, Ernst Kris, Bertram Lewin and Herman Nunberg, decided to preserve Freud's letters and papers in a single archive. The Library of Congress, Dr. Eissler wrote, agreed in a legal "instrument" to accept as a donation all documents collected by the Archives, and to make them accessible to scholars. By the 1980s Dr. Eissler, with the help of Anna Freud, had collected thousands of tapes, letters and papers for that archive. (An exhibition of parts of the collection was held at the Library of Congress last year and will be at the Jewish Museum this year.) [2]

The Archives were founded in 1951 by Dr. Eissler and directed by him for decades. Dr. Eissler prevented many well-meaning scholars from seeing many Freud doucments claiming confidentiality, even when their donors had not requested nor demanded that confidentiality, nor was anyone a potential victim of the revelation of those documents. In 1974 the 65-year-old Dr. Eissler met Dr. Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson (born 1941), a 33-year-old Sanskrit scholar and psychoanalyst, at a meeting of the American Psychoanalytic Association. Eissler took a liking to Masson, appointed him his secretary, and meant to make him his successor at the Archives. Being an officer of the Sigmund Freud Archives Masson had 'administrative access' to all documents in the Archives, he was allowed to see anything he wanted breaking the seal whenever necessary. In 1981 Dr. Masson, who was then the Projects Director of the Archives, delivered a paper to the Western New England Psychoanalytic Society in New Haven, Connecticut. Dr. Masson said that Freud had abandoned his seduction theory -- the idea that adult neurosis is caused by childhood sexual abuse -- for personal rather than scientific reasons. By dropping the seduction theory, Dr. Masson concluded, "Freud began a trend away from the real world that, it seems to me, has come to a dead halt in the present-day sterility of psychoanalysis throughout the world." Dr. Eissler was deeply shocked ("Just today Masud Khan called me from London and asked me to dismiss you from the Archives. The board members, all of them, or at least most of them, are asking for the same.") [3] and sought to dismiss Dr. Masson from his job at the Archives, which led to bilateral legal action and a well-publicized scandal.

Masson was subsequently dismissed from his position as project director of the Freud Archives after a vote by the 13-member board of the Freud Archives - a nonprofit foundation controlling the vast public and private papers of Freud - not to renew Dr. Masson's contract as projects director for a second year starting in January. [4]

The current director of the Archives is Dr. Harold P. Blum, a well-known psychoanalyst and scholar [5]. Dr. Harold P. Blum succeeded Dr. Masson and Dr. Eissler as Executive Director of The Sigmund Freud Archives. The other current officers of The Sigmund Freud Archives are: Drs. Alexander Grinstein, President; Bernard L. Pacella, Secretary/Treasurer; and Sidney S. Furst.

...........................................................................

Janet Malcolm
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Janet Malcolm (born 1934) is an American writer and journalist on staff at The New Yorker magazine. She is the author of The Journalist and the Murderer, Psychoanalysis: The Impossible Profession, and In the Freud Archives.

Malcolm is best known for the 1991 lawsuit triggered by In the Freud Archives, when psychoanalyst Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson sued Malcolm and The New Yorker for $10 million, after claiming that Malcolm had fabricated explosive quotations attributed to him. After several years of proceedings, the court found against Masson.

Craig Seligman wrote of her: "Like Sylvia Plath, whose not-niceness she has laid open with surgical skill, she discovered her vocation in not-niceness ... Malcolm's blade gleams with a razor edge. Her critics tend to go after her with broken bottles."[1] The influential critic Harold Bloom has praised her "wonderful exuberance," writing that Malcolm's books, "transcend what they appear to be: superb reportage."[2]
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Background and personal
* 2 Masson case
* 3 The Journalist and the Murderer
* 4 Works
* 5 References
* 6 Sources
* 7 External links

[edit] Background and personal

Malcolm was born in Prague in 1934, one of two daughters--the other is author Marie Winn-- of a psychiatrist father. She has resided in the United States since her family emigrated from Czechoslovakia in 1939. Malcolm was educated at the University of Michigan and lives in New York City. Her first husband, Donald Malcolm, reviewed books for The New Yorker in the 1950s and 1960's. Her second husband, whom she wed in 1975, was long-time New Yorker editor Gardner Botsford; Botsford died at age 87 in September, 2004.

Early Malcolm book jackets report her "living in New York with her husband and daughter." Her daughter is also mentioned in the text of The Crime of Sheila McGough.

[edit] Masson case

Publication of the book In The Freud Archives triggered a $10 million legal challenge by Jeffrey Masson, former project director for the Freud Archives, who claimed that Malcolm had libelled him by fabricating quotations attributed to him; these quotes, Masson contended, had brought him into disrepute.

In the disputed quotations, Masson called himself an "intellectual gigolo", who had slept with over 1000 women; said he wanted to turn the Freud estate into a haven of "sex, women and fun"; and claimed that he was, "after Freud, the greatest analyst that ever lived." Malcolm was unable to produce all the disputed material on tape. The case was partially adjudicated before the Supreme Court[3], and after years of proceedings, a jury finally found against Masson in 1994. (See the opinion at Masson v. New Yorker Magazine, Inc. (89-1799), 501 U.S. 496 (1991))

In August, 1995, Malcolm discovered a misplaced notebook containing three of the disputed quotes. As reported in The New York Times[4] the author "declared in an affidavit under penalty of perjury that the notes were genuine."

...................................................................................

DGB

What I wish to do in this essay is to give my own editorial comments on some of the various 'ethical transgressions' committed by the various 'players' in this Psychoanalytic scandal -- Freud, Fliess, Masson, The Psychoanalytic World, and Janet Malcolm -- no one comes off 'ethically scot-free' in this huge Psychoanalytic scandal: neither Freud nor Fliess in the mid 1890s, nor Masson, Malcolm, nor the Psychoanalytic World in the mid 1990s.

Indeed, it is partly ironical or maybe a sense of 'poetic justice' that this Psychoanalytic scandal that hit its peak in 1983-1984 was just short of a 'hundred year anniversary transference-repetition-compulsion' of the original Freudian ordeal (1896-1897) and '180 degree change in Psychoanalytic Theory' from 'real traumacy and sexual abuse to sexual fantasy' that provided the backdrop to the 1993-94 Masson vs. Malcolm and The Psychoanalytic Institute scandal.

In this regard, it was almost like Masson was playing the role of Freud's 'suppressed righteous-ethical conscience' -- in technical language, his 'rejecting object or Superego' for inventing a theory that engaged in 'the alleged role of childhood sexual fantasy' in Psychoanalytic cases where there may have been real, live patients who had 'suffered from the very real traumacy of childhood sexual abuse'.

In a Masson quoted comparison from 'In The Freud Archives', pg. 55, that I will extrapolate on here, that is like trying to pretend that 'Aushwitz' never happened -- that it was one big 'sexual fantasy', or alternatively, that there is essentially no reason for a therapist trying to deal with any 'real or imagined gap' between a patient's 'subjective, psychic reality' of how he or she 'experienced Aushwitz' and the 'objective reality' of what really happened to that patient at Aushwitz.

..............................................................................

Auschwitz concentration camp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Auschwitz)


"Auschwitz" redirects here. For the town, see Oświęcim. Distinguish from Austerlitz.

This article is semi-protected.

Coordinates: [show location on an interactive map] 50°02′09″N 19°10′42″E / 50.03583°N 19.17833°E / 50.03583; 19.17833
Auschwitz-Birkenau
German Nazi Concentration and
Extermination Camp (1940-1945)*
UNESCO World Heritage Site
The main gate of Auschwitz II-Birkenau in 2006
Type Cultural
Criteria vi
Reference 31
Region** Europe and North America
Inscription history
Inscription 1979 (3rd Session)
* Name as inscribed on World Heritage List.
** Region as classified by UNESCO.

Auschwitz-Birkenau (Konzentrationslager_Auschwitz.ogg Konzentrationslager Auschwitz (help·info)) was the largest of Nazi Germany's concentration camps and extermination camps, established in Nazi German occupied Poland. The camp took its German name from the nearby Polish town of Oświęcim. Birkenau, the German translation of Brzezinka (birch tree), refers to a small Polish village nearby which later was mostly destroyed by the Germans.

Following the German invasion of Poland in September 1939, Oświęcim was annexed by Nazi Germany and renamed Auschwitz, the town's German name.[1]

The camp commandant, Rudolf Höss, testified at the Nuremberg Trials that up to 3 million people had died at Auschwitz. The Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum has revised this figure to 1.1 million,[2][3] about 90% of whom were Jews from almost every country in Europe.[4] Most victims were killed in Auschwitz II's gas chambers using Zyklon B; other deaths were caused by systematic starvation, forced labor, lack of disease control, individual executions, and purported "medical experiments".

In 1947, in remembrance of the victims, Poland founded a museum at the site of the first two camps. By 1994, some 22 million visitors - 700,000 annually - had passed through the iron gate crowned with the motto "Arbeit macht frei (Work brings freedom)". The anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz by Soviet troops on January 27, 1945 is celebrated on International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Holocaust Memorial Day in the United Kingdom, and other similar memorial days in various countries.

............................................................................

DGB

As basically black and white, life and death, as Aushwitz obviously was -- and similarly in clear-cut cases of childhood sexual abuse where there is much witness testimony and/or supporting empirical evidence -- in many, many cases, particularly as the therapist is still getting to know the client and what he or she is all about -- there is nothing nearly so 'objectively and epistemologically clear' in the therapist's office between therapist and client. The therapist may not know to what extent he or she can trust the client's 'subjective revelations'.

Any psychotherapist -- as well as any of us in our day-to-day living -- is often caught between a rock and a hard place when it comes to determining 'objective, epistemological reality' relative to the memories, reports, and experiences that are coming out of the mouths of people who are talking about situations where we were not there at the time of these 'alleged events'.

The dreaded distinction between 'subjective' and 'objective' reality raises its 'clouded' face again.

Kant's 'subjective-objective-metaphysical split'.

The idea that we can never know for 100 percent sure what is happening in our own 'objective (noumenal) world' was one of the main theses of Kant's classic philosophical treatise: 'Critique of Pure Reason'. Kant's extremely skeptical, pessimistic epistemological conclusions in this regard were greatly disturbing to those who believed (like Hegel after him) that we could -- through human evolution -- get closer and closer to 'epistemological truth'. In some areas of science, yes. In many areas of day to day living -- and even in many 'court epistemological conclusions and decisions' -- not necessarily. 'Truth' in many life circumstances will always remain 'fleeting' and 'cloudy' -- even 'impossible to unequivocally determine'.

Did Freud 'lose moral courage and integrity'? Was Freud a fraud? How can any of us living today know for sure what was going on inside Freud's head back in 1896-97 in this regard when any and all conclusions are based on entirely, speculative, associative, circumstantial evidence?

Did Freud make a bad ethical if not legal mistake when he entrusted his patient, Emma Ekstein, to his closest friend, Dr. Fliess, who in turn conducted a totally unnecessary nasal surgery on her that almost killed her when he left -- and forgot -- a 'long string of gauze' in her nose that another doctor found days later when she was not healing properly, pulled on and pulled out -- and she almost bled to death from the nasal hemorrhaging? Yes. But is this the reason, or one of the reasons, that Freud changed his thinking from 'The Seduction Theory' to 'The Oedipal Theory'? None of us can know this. Including Dr. Masson. The theory that 'Freud lost moral courage and integrity' -- and that The Oedipal Theory, in effect, was a 'fraudulent cover-up theory with a hidden agenda behind it' -- to escape the 'political incorrectness' of child sexual abuse amongst his medical peers and superiors, and/or to 'save his own medical career' and/or to save both himself and his best friend, Fliess, from a 'huge medical guilt trip' -- all of these individual pieces of evidence do not in anyway conclusively prove Masson's 'theory into Freud's subjective mindset' -- this theory remains only that -- a theory -- just like Freud's 'Seduction Theory' and just like Freud's 'Oedipal Theory' -- impossible to prove conclusively one way or the other.

Actually, The Seduction Theory -- in its totally generality and reductionism -- is the easiest theory to logically disprove.

Not all people who are 'neurotic' are sexually assaulted as children.

I for one, can attest to that. I have a whole network of 'transference neuroses' in my personality, and I know for a fact that I didn't get sexually assaulted as a child. (Unless I was asleep or unconscious when it happened. Nope. Didn't happen. Indeed, I fully agree with Masson on this part -- if I was sexually assaulted as a child, I would know about it. I would remember it. Here Masson and I totally agree.

Personally, I don't think that 'repression' (unremembered memories) has much to do with human neurosis at all except perhaps in some very extreme and unusual case examples.

Here I part company from Psychoanalysis altogether both before and after 1896. I much prefer the ideas of 'dissociation' and 'splitting of the ego' (Charcot, Janet, Freud) into 'Persona' and 'Shadow' (Jung); or 'Ego' and 'Alter-ego' (Janet?); or Dionysian Ego and Apollonian Ego (my extension of Nietzsche's 'The Birth of Tragedy'; or 'Superego', 'Ego' and 'Id' (Classic Freudian Psychoanalysis).

There is nothing in my thinking that says that the 'sexual and/or violent' content in a person's 'Id' or 'Dionysian Ego' has to be 'unconscious' or 'repressed'. Often it may 'dissociated' or 'denied' or even 'suppressed' but not at all 'unconscious' or 'repressed'.

Thus, when I start to talk about 'Transference Complexes, Scripts, and Neuroses', I turn instead to Adler's very fertile idea of interpreting conscious early memories.

For me, conscious early childhood memories can be viewed as 'transference memories'.


In my opinion, if I am a therapist and some client tells me that he or she was sexually assaulted as a child, I am going to do two things: 1. tentatively accept the client's 'subjective, psychic reality'; and 2. retain a certain element of 'agnosticism' or 'objective skepticism' realizing that what the client is telling me has not been 'empirically verified or confirmed' in any way by any outside witnesses and/or supporting evidence.

The therapist is being hired as a therapist -- which means mostly the role of 'Nurturing Superego' as well as 'Insight Giver' -- not as 'judge' and 'jury' either for or against the client, or for or against any of the client's living 'family members' who may or may not have been guilty of some moral and/or legal transgression against the client when the client was a much younger age. That is for the police and/or courts to decide -- if the client wants to proceed that far -- not for the therapist to play the role of police, judge, or jury -- or even to 'push' the client in that direction. As a therapist, we can 'surmise and infer or interpret' all we want -- and even this can be extremely dangerous when it gets to the point of 'interpreting or reconstructing a sexual assault memory' that is coming out of your mouth, not the client's. I would not try to touch such an interpretation with a ten foot pole -- it might make you a legitimate, and deserved, candidate for a client or family lawsuit.

One only has to review the case of Dr. Charles Smith to see 'how far the seduction theory can potentially get out of control if it is not kept within reasonable boundaries'. Dr. Smith was a 'child forensic pathologist' who rose to the top of his field before he was 'disgraced' by the 'over exuberance' with which he seemed to be looking for 'child murderers'. Furthermore, a good psychoanalyst can see the 'transference connection' between what Dr. Smith was doing in his forensic office and in the court room -- and his own 'abandonment by his mother both as a child and again when he contacted her as an adult'.

'Transference reversal and/or revenge' for a person who has a lot of power in a field where he or she can 'act out' with relative impunity his or her particular brand of 'underlying psycho and socio-pathology' in the guise of 'technical expertise' is a very dangerous social phenomenon. We need to know more about it.

.................................................................................

Dr. Charles Smith: The man behind the public inquiry
Last Updated Oct. 1, 2008
CBC News

On a typical case, he might have to decide whether a child had been shaken to death or accidentally fallen from a highchair.

Dr. Charles Smith was once considered top-notch in his field of forensic child pathology. In 1999, a Fifth Estate documentary singled him out as one of four Canadians with this rare expertise.

Dr. Charles Smith was long regarded as one of Canada's best in forensic child pathology. A public inquiry was called after an Ontario coroner's inquiry questioned Smith's conclusions in 20 of 45 child autopsies. (CBC)

For 24 years, Smith worked at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children. In the hospital's pediatric forensic pathology unit, he conducted more than 1,000 child autopsies.

But Smith no longer practises pathology. An Ontario coroner's inquiry reviewed 45 child autopsies in which Smith had concluded the cause of death was either homicide or criminally suspicious.

The coroner's review found that Smith made questionable conclusions of foul play in 20 of the cases — 13 of which had resulted in criminal convictions. After the review's findings were made public in April 2007, Ontario's government ordered a public inquiry into the doctor's practices.

That inquiry, led by Justice Stephen Goudge and concluding in October 2008, found that Smith "actively misled" his superiors, "made false and misleading statements" in court and exaggerated his expertise in trials.

Far from an expert in forensic child pathology, "Smith lacked basic knowledge about forensic pathology," wrote Goudge in the inquiry report.

"Smith was adamant that his failings were never intentional," Goudge wrote. "I simply cannot accept such a sweeping attempt to escape moral responsibility."

Acted more like a prosecutor

Some have accused Smith of taking on a role larger than pathologist. The lawyer for Brenda Waudby said he was on a crusade and acted more like a prosecutor. Waudby was convicted in the murder of her daughter after Smith analyzed the case.

A pubic-like hair found on her daughter went missing during Smith's investigation. It was discovered he had kept the hair in his office before police found it five years later. In the end, Waudby's charges were dropped and the child's babysitter was convicted.

Smith said he had a passion for uncovering the truth in child deaths. The Ontario pathologist told media lampooning him he had "a thing against people who hurt children." He welled up when speaking about a mother looking for the cause of her baby's death.

Smith had been in search of his own personal truths. He was born in a Toronto Salvation Army hospital where he was put up for adoption three months later. After years of looking for his biological mother, he called her on her 65th birthday. But she refused to take his call.

Smith's adoptive family moved often. His father's job in the Canadian Forces took them throughout Canada and to Germany. He attended high school in Ottawa, and graduated from medical school at the University of Saskatchewan in 1975.

Sick Kids tenure

Hired by Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children in 1979, Smith worked in surgery for a year and then moved on to pathology training. A pathologist studies diseases and illnesses by assessing matter such as cells, tissues, organs and fluids. Pathologists also examine biopsy material, and give a subsequent diagnosis.

When it comes to autopsy reports, the field of pathology can be a subjective one. It's based on research and opinion, and it's especially controversial in Canada, where there is no formal training or certification process. Only a handful of practitioners in Ontario are entrusted with the job — and they've learned by doing.

With child victims, forensic analysis is rarely cut and dried. It can take an infant up to 24 hours to die of a shaking incident, which is a crime that doesn't leave evidence the way a regular killing might.

After his initial training at Sick Kids, as the Toronto hospital is known, Smith began conducting child autopsies in 1981. He started with children who had died of accidental and natural causes. By the late '90s, Smith saw more forensic child cases than any other pathologist across the country.

Smith's unit used arrest warrants to reinvestigate cases of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). He oversaw the autopsies of exhumed babies that led to new murder charges.

In one such case, Smith appeared before a court in the death of six-month-old Sara Podniewicz. He concluded she had been dead for up to 15 hours before her parents reported the death. The parents had told a 911 operator the girl had died just moments before. Smith's analysis led to second-degree murder charges.

First doubts

In 1991, a family in Timmins, Ont., was the first to raise questions about Smith's work. He had concluded their one-year-old baby had died from being shaken. The child had been under the care of a babysitter who said the baby had fallen down stairs.

In court, experts challenged Smith's opinion, which had resulted in the babysitter's charge of manslaughter. The judge in the case stated Smith should have taken other causes into consideration.

Once the most prolific pathologist, Smith began getting a reputation for late cases, and his disorderly desk produced samples that had gone missing.

In 2002, he received a caution from the Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons. The college said he was being "overly dogmatic" and had a "tendency towards overstatement."

In June 2005, Dr. Barry McLellan, Ontario's chief coroner, started the review of 45 child autopsies conducted by Smith between 1991 and 2002. The review, released in April 2007, found that Smith had made mistakes in 20 cases involving the deaths of children. The review cast doubt on criminal convictions in 13 of the cases.

"I am very surprised with the overall results of the review, and concerned," McLellan said. "In a number of cases, the reviewers felt that Dr. Smith had provided an opinion regarding the cause of death that was not reasonably supported by the materials available for review."

The chief coroner said the results of the review were being shared with defence and Crown attorneys involved in all of the relevant criminal cases.

After resigning from Sick Kids in 2005, Smith accepted a pathology position in Saskatoon. He was fired after three months. A tribunal later reinstated him, but without a licence, Smith was unable to practise.

Smith told media his marriage ended in light of stress from the highly publicized events. He had lived with his wife and two children on a farm north of Newmarket, Ont.

As a member of the Christian and Missionary Alliance, Smith says he has been fuelled by his life's purpose — finding out the truth for parents who have lost babies.

.................................................................................


DGB


With all due respect to Masson because I greatly respect his work and his willingness to stand up to his conclusions, some of which I support and others which I don't, memories are like all human experiences -- they are subjectively biased, and can be distorted, even intentionally or unintentionally totally fabricated.

This certainly does not mean that they are always, or even usually, fabricated in the cases of memories of sexual assault. Indeed, I agree with Masson's conclusion that if a person has been sexually assaulted, they are usually going to clearly remember it; there certainly does not have to be any 'repression' involved, nor does there need to be any repression involved to 'cause' neurosis.

First of all, let me give you two examples of 'fabricated memories' from my own life. In the first case, my dad was going through one of the most stressful times of his life. His company was collapsing, the work that he had done his entire life was collapsing, he wasn't making enough revenue anymore to pay for all his bills, and his bills -- including company creditors -- were soaring higher and higher. My dad seemed bordering on the edge of a nervous breakdown. Neither his thoughts nor his memories were 'logically connecting' in a way that people around him would normally expect from him in any normal conversation.

My family and I years previous to this happening, had gone on a trip to the Bahamas. My brother and I had recounted a memory several or numerous times in the intervening years where we had gone for a walk along the beach first thing in the morning. On our way back to the hotel we got 'trapped' by one of the many canals in Freeport, Bahamamas that wound its way inland for seemingly miles from the ocean beach.

My brother and I were looking at the 100 feet or so that it would take to 'swim' across the channel, and we were also looking at the 'seemingly miles that we would need to walk inland to walk around the canal. Swimming, and getting soaked in the process -- we were wearing summer clothes at the time, not bathing suits -- was becoming more and more attractive to the point where we were going to do it when a large stingray meandered past our very eyes in the light blue-green water that we were looking down at. We quickly changed our minds -- and walked around the canal.

Years later, during this period of heavy stress for my dad, a group of us were in my parents' living room when my dad recounted the story as if he had been there! My brother and I looked at each other -- and said nothing. But quietly we were both shaking our heads because we knew he had not been with us that morning, he was either back at the hotel or out somewhere doing his own business that morning. It had just been my brother and I who had been there.

Just to show that this type of thing can happen to all of us -- and me too -- I remember my dad recounting a memory where at the age of of about 5, I had stood up in front of a whole church congregation and named off every country on a globe that presumably my dad pointed to in front of me. I succeeded, obviously with a lot of private practice before I got to that moment and event in the church. The thing is, I never 'remembered' the incident until my dad shared it with me numerous times in my later life. Then I started to 'remember' what only can be construed as a 'false memory'. This can happen to all of us.

Similarly, the particular detail events in memories over time -- especially as we get older and our memory is not as good as it used to be -- can be 'added' to and/or 'subtracted' from the memory, different or similar events from different memories in different times and/or places can be 'conflated' together. All of this is to say that 'subjective, narcissistically biased memories' -- unless otherwise supported and confirmed by other witnesses and/or credible evidence -- should not be construed as being the same as 'objective facts'.

Having said this, not many people are going to 'forget' a memory with the magnitude of 'subjective importance' of a sexual assault -- or anything close to it. I can remember twice in my younger life -- between 20 and 35 -- where I was verbally propositioned by homosexual men. At least once when I was driving cab in my 30s, a second time too, I believe, that I cannot remember the details, and once in my teens or early 20s where I was propositioned in the man's apartment after he had just locked the door. I politely told the man, 'sorry, but I didn't lean that way' -- and promptly undid the lock and left. Another time -- stupid on my part -- I was hitchhiking back to university late at night and got into a car with a homosexual man. The man towards the end of the trip made a 'physical pass' at me, putting his hand on my knee and running it up my leg -- this was probably one of the most stupid situations that I ever got myself into but fortunately we were in Waterloo by this time and I was out of the car in a flash without anything further developing.

That last memory I have only shared with one or two people in my life -- I was embarrassed, humiliated might be a better word, for getting myself into the situation in the first place where it happened. Memories like this, we don't 'forget'. Maybe we 'suppress' them -- don't share them with others -- but that doesn't mean that we either 'forget' or 'repress' them. We remember them clearly.
Or speaking from my own experience, this is what I believe.

So Freud's 'Oedipal Theory' clearly did a 'disservice' to mankind, and particularly to any Psychoanalytic clients who may have been sexually assaulted as children because the Oedipal Theory basically 'denied the existence' of such 'traumatic experiences and the memories of such experiences' having re-theorized and classified these experiences and memories of experiences into 'normal childhood -- and/or later teenage -- sexual fantasies unconsciously re-worked, masked, distorted, and/or fabricated as 'actually happened events' that in post 1900 Psychoanalytic theory -- didn't happen. For a client who may have been actually horrifically sexually assaulted, this would be like the equivalent of telling a Jewish survivor of the Holocaust that 'the Holocaust never happened'. Thus, in this regard, The Oedipal Theory can only be construed as a 'brutal pathology of normalcy' within Psychoanalytic Theory itself -- and something that to this day, still needs to be changed amongst all Classically trained Psychoanalysts who are still adhering to this 'distorted' theory.

In my opinion, The Oedipal Theory should be defined and described differently: it is our tendency to be romantically and/or sexually attracted to a person who reminds us in some way, consciously or subconsciously, of one or both of our parents.

This does not need to imply that we were all sexually attracted to our parent of the opposite sex growing up -- or that we wanted to 'conquer and destroy' the parent of the same sex in order to get to the parent of the opposite sex, although in many families growing up, it might indeed, actually seem like this type of psychological process was going on. But this theory is better taken 'metaphorically, symbolically, and/or mythologically' in my opinion, than to be taken literally like a Classically trained Psychoanalyst is taught to do.

Freud created the 'Oedipal Complex' from the ancient Greek Sophocles Trilogy.

..............................................................................

Oedipus Trilogy

The Oedipus Trilogy was originally written by Sophocles and is meant to be told in a story-telling fashion.
SOPHOCLES

OEDIPUS THE KING

Translation by F. Storr, BA
Formerly Scholar of Trinity College, Cambridge
From the Loeb Library Edition
Originally published by
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA
and
William Heinemann Ltd, London

First published in 1912

----------------------------------------------------------------------

ARGUMENT

To Laius, King of Thebes, an oracle foretold that the child born
to him by his queen Jocasta would slay his father and wed his mother.
So when in time a son was born the infant's feet were riveted together
and he was left to die on Mount Cithaeron. But a shepherd found the
babe and tended him, and delivered him to another shepherd who took
him to his master, the King or Corinth. Polybus being childless
adopted the boy, who grew up believing that he was indeed the King's
son. Afterwards doubting his parentage he inquired of the Delphic god
and heard himself the weird declared before to Laius. Wherefore he
fled from what he deemed his father's house and in his flight he
encountered and unwillingly slew his father Laius. Arriving at Thebes
he answered the riddle of the Sphinx and the grateful Thebans made
their deliverer king. So he reigned in the room of Laius, and
espoused the widowed queen. Children were born to them and Thebes
prospered under his rule, but again a grievous plague fell upon the
city. Again the oracle was consulted and it bade them purge
themselves of blood-guiltiness. Oedipus denounces the crime of which
he is unaware, and undertakes to track out the criminal. Step by
step it is brought home to him that he is the man. The closing scene
reveals Jocasta slain by her own hand and Oedipus blinded by his own
act and praying for death or exile.

.............................................................................


But in my opinion again, 'The Oedipal Myth' is best left interpreted as a myth -- and not something normally to be taken literally, although again, in some particular circumstances, it almost looks like it should be taken literally.

And often, it is quite possible to get some extremely 'mixed up' and/or 'conflated' variables.

For example, we could divide the Oedipal Complex in half and talk about the 'Antigone Complex' where a child metaphorically and/or literally wants to 'conquer and/or destroy' his or her parent of the same sex.

And we can also talk about the 'Polar Oedipal Complex' where we are attracted to a person who has the opposite characteristic(s) of one or both parents.

Indeed, it is not at all unusual for elements of Freud's 'Traumacy-Seduction Theory, Oedipal Theory, Transference Theory and and Narcissistic Compensation/Overcompensation/Mastery Compulsion Theory (Adler's influence)' -- all to be conflated together in particular case examples giving an extremely muddled clinical picture unless a therapist is actually taught (and/or learns him or herself) to expect this type of clinical picture to happen. Because I think it is more the norm than the exception.

Personally, I believe that the strongest Freudian Theory exists when all of Freud's various theories are merged together -- even the ones he personally 'disowned' -- and treated as supporting each other, not as being mutually exclusive.

This is where we all have a tendency of getting caught up -- and 'tricked' -- by Aristolean or Kierkgaardian 'black or white, either/or logic' when oftentimes we are better utilizing Hegelian or post-Hegelian 'dialectically-integrative logic'.


One of the best ideas of 'wisdom' that I can come up with is the distinction of 'properly knowing when we are best utilizing Aristolean-Kierkegaardian either/or logic vs. when we are best utilizing Hegelian or Post-Hegelian dialectically-integrative logic'. Often, we get 'stuck' and 'locked' inside an Aristolean-Kierkegaardian model of viewing the world and our own particular choices when we would be better utilizing a Post-Hegelian, Humanistic-Existential, Dialectically Integrative Model.

To give you another example, in physics, to the best of memory, there used to be a 'particle' theory or matter. Then there was a 'wave theory' of matter. However, the best model of all came when -- using Hegelian dialectic logic -- a 'wave-particle duality' theory was created which became a central quantum mechanics.

................................................................................

Wave–particle duality
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Quantum mechanics
\Delta x\, \Delta p \ge \frac{\hbar}{2}
Uncertainty principle
Introduction to...

Mathematical formulation of...
[show]Background
Classical mechanics
Old quantum theory
Interference · Bra-ket notation
Hamiltonian
[hide]Fundamental concepts
Quantum state · Wave function
Superposition · Entanglement

Measurement · Uncertainty
Exclusion · Duality
Decoherence · Ehrenfest theorem · Tunneling
[show]Experiments
Double-slit experiment
Davisson–Germer experiment
Stern–Gerlach experiment
Bell's inequality experiment
Popper's experiment
Schrödinger's cat
Elitzur-Vaidman bomb-tester
Quantum eraser
[show]Formulations
Schrödinger picture
Heisenberg picture
Interaction picture
Matrix mechanics
Sum over histories
[show]Equations
Schrödinger equation
Pauli equation
Klein–Gordon equation
Dirac equation
Bohr Theory and Balmer-Rydberg Equation
[show]Interpretations
Copenhagen · Ensemble
Hidden variable theory · Transactional
Many-worlds · Consistent histories
Relational · Quantum logic · Pondicherry
[show]Advanced topics
Quantum field theory
Quantum gravity
Theory of everything
[show]Scientists
Planck · Einstein · Bohr · Sommerfeld · Bose · Kramers · Heisenberg· Born · Jordan · Pauli · Dirac · de Broglie ·Schrödinger · von Neumann · Wigner · Feynman · Candlin · Bohm · Everett · Bell · Wien
This box: view • talk • edit

In physics and chemistry, wave–particle duality is the concept that all matter and energy exhibits both wave-like and particle-like properties. A central concept of quantum mechanics, duality addresses the inadequacy of classical concepts like "particle" and "wave" in fully describing the behaviour of small-scale objects. Various interpretations of quantum mechanics attempt to explain this ostensible paradox.

Wave–particle duality should be distinguished from wave-particle complementarity, the latter implying that matter can demonstrate both particle and wave characteristics, but not both at the same time (that is, not within one and the same experimental arrangement).

The idea of duality is rooted in a debate over the nature of light and matter dating back to the 1600s, when competing theories of light were proposed by Christiaan Huygens and Isaac Newton: light was thought either to consist of waves (Huygens) or of particles (Newton). Through the work of Albert Einstein, Louis de Broglie, and many others, current scientific theory holds that all particles also have a wave nature (and vice versa).[1] The only distinction in this regard is that in different contexts, because of mass or energy or frequency, some matter seems more particle-like than wave-like; in other contexts, or with reduced values of energy etc., the same matter will more obviously show wave-like qualities than particle-like.

This phenomenon has been verified not only for elementary particles, but also for compound particles like atoms and even molecules. In fact, according to traditional formulations of non-relativistic quantum mechanics, wave–particle duality applies to all objects, even macroscopic ones; because of their small wave lengths, the wave properties of macroscopic objects cannot be detected.[2]

...........................................................................

The same type of 'dialectically integrative' or 'duality theory' should be applied to Psychoanalysis as has been done in physics.

Everyone of Freud's many 'sub-theories' should be equally respected and/or modified and then merged together to create what I think is potentially the best Psychoanalytic theory of all -- a 'multi-dialectic-integrative-and-wholistic one'; not a 'reductionistically torn apart and dissociated one' where all the individual pieces and sub-theories need to be put back together again like 'Humpty Dumpty'.

Even Freud's last theory that was only just being started to be developed on 'dissociation' and the splitting of the ego' would become an incredibly valuable addition to 'Object Relations' Psychoanalysis as clinicians and theorists like Melanie Klein, Ronald Fairbairn, Donald Winnicott, Harold Guntrip, Heinz Kohut, and Eric Berne would take this 'theoretical ball and run with it'.

.............................................................................

Melanie Klein
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of a series of articles on
Psychoanalysis
Psychoanalysis

Concepts
Psychosexual development
Psychosocial development
Conscious • Preconscious • Unconscious
Psychic apparatus
Id, ego, and super-ego
Libido • Drive
Transference
Countertransference
Ego defenses • Resistance
Projection • Denial

Important figures
Alfred Adler • Michael Balint
Wilfred Bion • Nancy Chodorow
Erik Erikson • Ronald Fairbairn
Sándor Ferenczi
Anna Freud • Sigmund Freud
Erich Fromm • Harry Guntrip
Karen Horney
Ernest Jones • Carl Jung
Melanie Klein • Heinz Kohut
Jacques Lacan
Margaret Mahler • Otto Rank
Wilhelm Reich
Harry Stack Sullivan
Susan Sutherland Isaacs
Donald Winnicott

Important works
The Interpretation of Dreams
Beyond the Pleasure Principle
Civilization and Its Discontents

Schools of thought
Self psychology • Lacanian
• Object relations
Interpersonal • Relational
Ego psychology
Psychology portal
This box: view • talk • edit

Melanie Klein (March 30, 1882 – September 22, 1960) was an Austrian-born British psychoanalyst who devised novel therapeutic techniques for children that had a significant impact on child psychology and contemporary psychoanalysis. She was a leading innovator in theorizing object relations theory.
Contents
[hide]

* 1 Life
* 2 Thought
* 3 Literature
* 4 In popular culture
* 5 External links
* 6 Notes

[edit] Life

Born in Vienna of Jewish parentage[1], Klein first sought psychoanalysis for herself with Sandor Ferenczi when he was living in Budapest during World War I. There she became a psychoanalyst and began analysing children in 1919. In 1921 she moved to Berlin where she studied with and was analysed by Karl Abraham. Although Abraham supported her pioneering work with children, neither Klein nor her ideas received much support in Berlin. However, impressed by her innovative work, British psychoanalyst Ernest Jones invited Klein to come to London in 1926, where she worked until her death in 1960.

Klein had a major influence on the theory and technique of psychoanalysis, particularly in Great Britain. As a divorced woman whose academic qualifications consisted of a teaching degree, Klein was a visible iconoclast within a profession dominated by male physicians.

After the arrival of Sigmund Freud and his psychoanalyst daughter, Anna, in London in 1938, Klein’s ideas came into conflict with those of Continental analysts who were immigrating to Britain. Following protracted debates between the followers of Klein and the followers of Anna Freud during the 1940s, the British Psychoanalytical Society split into three separate training divisions: (1) Kleinian, (2) Anna Freudian, and (3) independent. This division remains to the current time.

Apart from her professional successes, Klein’s life was full of tragic events. Allegedly the product of an unwanted birth, her parents showed her little affection. Her much loved elder sister died when Klein was four, and she was made to feel responsible for her brother’s death. Her academic studies were interrupted by marriage and children. Her marriage failed and her son died, while her daughter, the well-known psychoanalyst Melitta Schmideberg, fought her openly in the British Psychoanalytic Society. Mother and daughter were not reconciled before Klein's death, and Schmideberg did not attend Klein's funeral.

[edit] Thought

Although she questioned some of the fundamental assumptions of Sigmund Freud, Klein always considered herself a faithful adherent to Freud's ideas. Klein was the first person to use traditional psychoanalysis with young children. She was innovative in both her techniques[2] (such as working with children using toys) and her theories in infant development. Strongly opinionated, and demanding loyalty from her followers, Klein established a highly influential training program in psychoanalysis. She is considered one of the co-founders of object relations theory.

Klein's theoretical work gradually centered on a speculative hypothesis eventually accepted by Freud, which stated that life may be a fragile occurrence, that it is drawn toward an inorganic state, and therefore, in an unspecified sense, contains a drive towards death. In psychological terms Eros (properly, the life instinct), the postulated sustaining and uniting principle of life, is thereby presumed to have a companion force, Thanatos (death instinct), which allegedly seeks to terminate and disintegrate life.Both Freud and Klein regarded these biomental forces as the foundations of the psyche. These were human instincts ("Triebe") unrelated to the animal instincts of ethology.These primary unconscious forces, whose mental matrix is the "id," sparked the ego--the experiencing self--into activity. Id, ego, and superego--to be sure--were merely shorthand terms (like the "instincts")referring to highly complex, mostly uncharted, psychodynamic operations. Freud and Klein never abandoned the terms or the conceptualizations despite protests and controversies by many of their adherents, especially now.

While Freud’s ideas concerning children mostly came from working with adult patients, Klein was innovative in working directly with children, often as young as two years old. Klein saw children’s play as their primary mode of emotional communication. After observing troubled children play with toys such as dolls, animals, plasticine, pencil and paper, Klein attempted to interpret the specific meaning of play. She realised that parental figures played a significant role in the child’s phantasy life, and considered that the chronology of Freud’s Oedipus complex was imprecise. Contradicting Freud, she concluded that the superego was present long before the Oedipal phase.

After exploring ultra-aggressive phantasies of hate, envy, and greed in very young, very ill children, Melanie Klein proposed a model of the human psyche that linked significant oscillations of state, with whether the postulated Eros or Thanatos instincts were in the fore. She named the state of the psyche, when the sustaining principle of life is in domination, the depressive position. The psychological state corresponding to the disintegrating tendency of life she called the paranoid-schizoid position.[3]

Klein's insistence on regarding aggression as an important force in its own right when analysing children brought her into conflict with Freud's own daughter, Anna Freud, who was one of the other prominent child psychotherapists working in England at that time. Many controversies arose from this conflict, and these are often referred to as the controversial/scientific discussions.

Today, Kleinian psychoanalysis is one of the major schools within psychoanalysis. Kleinian psychoanalysts are members of the International Psychoanalytical Association. Kleinian psychoanalysis is claimed to be the predominant school of psychoanalysis within Britain, in much of Latin America, and with the possible exception of Lacanianism, in much of continental Europe. Within the United States of America, the Psychoanalytic Center of California is the major training center that follows the work of Melanie Klein. Kleinian psychoanalysis with adults is characterized by a very traditional technique using an analytic couch and meeting four to five times a week. Kleinian analysis focuses on interpreting very "deep" and primitive emotions and phantasies.

....................................................................................

DGB

In the 'Splitting of the Ego in The Process of Defense' essay (1938), written a year before he died in London, England, Freud's opening paragraph is extremely significant.

'I find myself for a moment in the interesting position of not knowing whether what I have to say should be regarded as something long familiar and obvious or as something entirely new and puzzling. But I am inclined to think the latter.' (The Standard Edition of The Complete Works of Sigmund Freud, Volume 23, p. 275).

There are numerous ways in which this 'old-new' line of thinking on Freud's part should both be linked to his past work -- and to the work of Pierre Janet -- as well as pointing a 'new' path for Psychoanalysis in the future.

.............................................................

Pierre Janet
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Pierre Janet
Born May 30, 1859(1859-05-30)
Died February 24, 1947 (aged 87)
Nationality French
Fields psychology, philosophy, psychiatry
Doctoral students William James
Known for dissociation

Pierre Marie Félix Janet (May 30, 1859 - February 24, 1947) was a pioneering French psychologist, philosopher and psychotherapist in the field of dissociation and traumatic memory.

He was one of the first people to draw a connection between events in the subject's past life and his or her present day trauma, and coined the words ‘dissociation’ and ‘subconscious’. He studied under Jean-Martin Charcot at the Psychological Laboratory in Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital, in Paris. In several ways, he preceded Sigmund Freud. Many consider Janet, rather than Freud, the true 'founder' of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.

He first published the results of his research in his philosophy thesis in 1889 and in his medical thesis, L'état mental des hystériques, in 1892. He earned a degree in medicine the following year in 1893.

In 1898, Janet was appointed lecturer in psychology at the Sorbonne, and in 1902 he attained the chair of experimental and comparative psychology at the Collège de France, a position he held until 1936. He was a member of the Institut de France from 1913.

In 1923, he wrote a definitive text, La médecine psychologique, on suggestion and in 1928-32, he published several definitive papers on memory.

Whilst he did not publish much in English, the fifteen lectures he gave to the Harvard Medical School between 15 October and the end of November 1906 were published in 1907 as The Major Symptoms of Hysteria and he received an honorary doctorate from Harvard in 1936.

..........................................................................

DGB


Personally, the one theory of Freud's that I more or less completely 'dissociate' myself from is his theory of 'repression' and 'the unconscious'. I much prefer Janet's concepts of 'dissociation' and 'subconscious'. And the concept that Freud is just starting to develop here -- specifically, the 'splitting of the ego in the process of defense' although here we need to either make critical distinctions and/or 'equal associative linguistic and semantic connections' between the 'splitting of the ego', 'the splitting of the psyche', and the 'splitting of the Whole Self'. I am inclined to lump all three of these ideas together to mean exactly the same thing.

Many psychoanalysts, I believe, would not want to do this. Freud, as I recall -- I will have to check this -- believed that the newborn baby was basically a 'bundle of biological, biochemical, sexual, and psychic energy' -- which he called the 'Id' -- to be differentiated later from the biological, social, evolutionary survival function and development of 'the ego' as it 'split off from the id' in order to protect the self from 'internal and/or external dangers'. 'The Superego' -- i.e., the 'internalized (or introjected) righteous, ethical, social conscience of society and/or the parents -- would be viewed by Freud as a later 'splitting off of The Ego' into the third part of the human psyche which Freud gave the name 'Superego' to.

Now Freud's 'classic 3 part model of the human psyche' as discussed above is either a little bit or quite a bit different than any kind of 'Object Relations' model depending on who is doing the interpreting and what kind of Object Relations model we are talking about.

Freud was the first psychoanalyst to use the term 'object' (1915?) -- starting from his 'drive theory' (sexual and aggressive) and then differentiating between the 'source', 'the aim', and the 'object' of the particular drive. In 1917 ('Mourning and Melancholia), Freud started to talk about 'external objects' and 'lost objects' relative to depression which eventually paved the way for Melanie Klein to start to talk about 'relational psychoanalysis' with 'internal' and 'external' objects as well as 'drive Psychoanalysis' (a derivative of Freud's sexual and aggressive instincts) and Fairbairn to take this one step further and drop 'drive Psychoanalysis altogether.

The two types of models can actually be integrated and incorporated into the same model as Klein more or less tried to do (but with some further distinctions).

My intent is similar but in a way that is much broader (and less convoluted) than Klein as I aim to integrate all elements of Psychoanalytic Theory (as well as some aspects of 'Non-Analytic' theory: Adler, Jung, Perls, Berne, Masson).

This includes: Traumacy-Seduction Theory, my modified version of Oedipal Theory, 'Unorthodox Transference' Theory, the Adlerian interpretation of conscious early childhood memories as 'conflicted transference memories', Narcissistic Id Theory, 'Mastery Compulsion, Compensation, and Transference-Reversal Theory', and Object Relations Theory...with the outside contributions of the aforementioned Adler, Jung, Klein, Fairbairn, Kohut, Perls, Berne, and others...

What this requires is essentially a further 'splitting off' of both The Ego and The Superego as well as perhaps even the Id and/or other 'Subterranean' elements of the Personality into further 'components', 'compartments' or 'divisions' of the psyche.

This idea we will develop more specifically in the next essay.

Enough for now.


-- dgb, August 1st, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain

From Classical Psychoanalysis and Psycho-Sexual Development to Object Relations to Transactional Analysis and Beyond...

Freud did some good work on 'character types' or 'personality types' which he linked to his theory of 'psycho-sexual development'. The beginning of this type of work probably starts with the publication of his 'Three Essays on Sexuality' (1905). At some point -- I am not sure whether it was here or later -- Freud started to differentiate between the 'oral' and 'anal' character with different sub-distinctions postulated for each of these two basic character types.

In this regard -- and don't ask me at this point where I am getting this from -- mainly from a combination of memory and probably extrapolation and embellishment of this memory -- further distinctions can be made relative to the 'oral character' such as 'oral-nurturing', 'oral-receptive', 'oral-sucking', 'oral-biting', 'orally fixated' ('orally obsessive'), 'oral-giving', 'oral-getting', 'oral hedonistic'...

Similarly, relative to the 'anal character', we might make such distinctions as: 'anal-retentive', 'anal-expulsive', 'anal-righteous', 'anal-sadistic', 'anal-rejecting', 'anal-abandoning', 'anal schizoid', 'anal-accepting', 'anally fixated', 'anal-obsessive', 'anal-hedonistic'...

Now having studied many different schools and sub-schools of psychology, it is very easy for me to integrate a more 'Instinctual, Psycho-Sexual Development' model of Psychoanalysis with a more 'Object Relations and Transactional Analysis' model of Psychoanalysis and Post-Psychoanalysis.

The integration works something like this:


Freud once advanced the idea -- probably with the influence of his best friend Fliess -- that the human personality is inherently 'bi-sexual'. As provocative and controversial as this idea may sound at first blush, there is some good, strong clinical evidence to support this idea, this theory -- and it can also be added that the body is inherently bi-sexual as well.

In Chinese medicine, the terms 'yin' (feminine energy) and 'yang' (masculine energy) are still very much in use. Biochemically, we know that both men and women have different combinations or proportions of both 'testosterone' and 'estrogen' in their bodies which are typically viewed as the predominantly 'male and female hormones' respectively.

Psychologically, psycho-socially, and psycho-sexually children are ideally brought up by two parents, a mother and a father, and both parents will have their share of influence on the 'evolving character makeup' of this child. Stereotypically, particularly in the youngest years, the mother is looked upon as the 'primary nurturer' (what we typically view as 'maternal qualities') although at some points she will need to impart 'discipline and order' as well. Stereotypically, discipline and order are often viewed as more 'paternalistic qualities' but any child has a need for paternalistic nurturing and encouragement as well.

So 'stereotypically male and female characteristics and qualities' are in a 'normal, healthy' family passed on to a male or female child through the 'bi-polar and bi-sexual' influence of both mother and father, although within this generic stereotype of 'normal, healthy parental influence and childhood development' there are practically an infinite number of more 'individually customized' permutations and combinations on this very broad, generic theme -- some obviously more 'healthy' than others. Lack of maternal and/or paternal nurturing and/or lack of maternal and/or paternal discipline can either or both cause significant later development (teenage and adult) psychological, psych-social, and psycho-sexual problems...


........................................................

Now Freud has been criticized heavily for his 'pan-sexuality' -- and taking sexuality literally in places where he perhaps shouldn't have and was perhaps getting a little carried away (such as a baby sucking at a mother's breast).

But that was Freud -- his focus was on human sexuality -- traumatic, hedonistic, and narcissistic -- and everything else branched off from there.

Few would deny that sexuality does not play a dominating role in human nature and human behavior.

How many times during the course of a normal day do we not think of sexuality? Maybe this applies more to men than women -- but then again, maybe not.

There are times in our lives when sexuality may take a back seat to other more pressing problems -- work, money, family issues, etc.

But still -- sexuality is almost always present and plays a central part in character-formation, character structure, transference complexes, scripts, and games, and the dynamic process of everyday-living.

Freud's 'psycho-sexual theory of human development' is important to get a handle on even if we do not want to take this theory totally 'by the Orthodox Psychoanalytic book' in every different corner of it.

There are also important interactions going on in the human personality between sexuality, egotism, self-esteem hedonism, narcissism, authoritarianism, and power that we also need to get a power on.

This is where Alfred Adler made one of his greatest contributions to Psychoanalysis -- and to his own brand of Adlerian Psychology -- before and after he left Freud's company.

Adler made a number of extremely valuable contributions to the evolution of clinical psychology and psychotherapy, one of the main ones of which I will discuss briefly here.

Adler's concept of 'compensation' is absolutely essential to understanding human behavior as with all form of life on earth. Compensation is one of the main forms of both human and non-human evolution and 'mutation'. For example, even viruses and bacteria have an 'evolutionary intelligence' that we do not always give them credit for. More and more, we are learning about the ability of both viruses and bacteria to become 'drug-resistant'. This is evolutionary intelligence at work in the form of compensation and mutation. Even viruses and bacteria are not 'stupid'. They have been around this world for a very long time -- much longer than man by my understanding -- and this evolutionary ability to 'survive and propagate the species' does not come by accident. Viruses and bacteria 'learn' as well as humans do. And when humans compensate with new vaccines and/or medicines to battle off particular strands of viruses and bacteria -- viruses and bacteria eventually learn about the new 'man-made compensations', and they adjust and compensate as well. That is how they 'learn' to stay alive and to continue to do what they do.

The left lobe of my liver has reportedly grown bigger to 'compensate' for some of the neglected bodily functions that have been compromised and/or destroyed by the cirrhosis in the right side of my liver.

Similarly, a cousin of mine had his spleen taken out because of a genetic blood problem called 'hereditary spherocytosis' in the family (which I have too, and has been one of the problems that has put additional stress on my liver). A surgeon took my cousin's spleen out -- to avoid the type of blood and liver complications that I have had to deal with my whole life -- meaning that our 'spherical-shaped' blood cells get broken down by the spleen much faster than normal shaped blood cells do -- and he grew a new spleen back! A rarity in human biological functioning and medical history, I do believe!

As I reported in an earlier essay, I was told by a seemingly knowledgeable source that the liver has something like 600 bodily function to carry out. In this regard, some have called the liver 'The Chief Executive Officer' of the body -- where I will be a little more specific and call it 'The Chief Medical Detoxification Officer' of the body.

Obviously, the functions -- and pathologies -- of the liver are of utmost personal interest to me, but in addition to this, my purpose here is to make an 'associative connection' between the physical functions of the body and the psychic functions of the personality.

Specifically, the heart can be equated more with the 'Oral-Nurturing Part of The Personality' -- in that the purpose of the heart is to pump nutrients -- food and oxygen -- to all the different parts of the personality in the same way that the purpose of 'The Oral-Nurturing (Maternal) Topdog's purpose and function is to 'pump encouragement, confidence, and self-esteem -- psychic nourishment' -- into the various parts of the personality.

In a similar fashion, the liver can be viewed as carrying out a very similar purpose and function as 'The Anal-Righteous (Paternal) Topdog' -- and that is essentially 'detoxification' -- physical vs. psychological.

The liver's job is primarily 'detoxification' -- screening out poisons and toxins that would enter the bloodstream and the body's organs if the liver was not there. In this sense, the liver is like one of those 'Reverse Osmosis Water Filters' that you can hook up to your tap and it 'cleans the water' of all major impurities, toxins, chemicals, etc.

This is essentially the same job of 'The Ethically-Righteous Topdog' in the overall functioning of the 'Ego' -- or 'Psyche'. Detoxification of the personality -- and one's environment -- of all impurities, toxins, corruptions, greed, and philo-psycho-socio-pathologies.

Now like the liver -- and the immune system -- you can have what are called 'auto-immune diseases' where the detoxification process gets out of control and starts to destroy healthy cells in the body and/or confusing 'healthy cells' with 'incoming invaders'; and likewise in the personality, if 'The Ethically-Righteous Topdog' is pathologically constructed and/or gets out of control, we can get 'auto-immune psychological pathologies' in the personality where The Ethically-Righteous Topdog is essentially attacking 'healthy elements' in the personality and self-esteem.

Now obviously in the personality, you can't see an 'ethically anal-righteous (paternal) topdog' nor an 'oral-nurturing (maternal) topdog' so these remain 'assumptive constructs and concepts' to explain the way the personality acts very much in accordance with the same way that the body functions -- and generally if not always towards some sort of 'subjectively construed' homeostatic balance.

Some people may have a perceived need for more 'individual security and stability' than others, while other people may have a greater perceived need for more 'excitement and risk-taking' in the personality. Thus, to a certain extent, everyone's homeostatic-dialectic balance is going to be a little -- or a lot -- different.

However, as in different medical conditions, at some point someone(s) has to draw the line as to what is and isn't considered within the 'normal range of human behavior' -- which becomes increasingly difficult in the realm of human behavior because you also have the possibility of a 'pathology of normalcy' within the society or culture or sub-culture as a whole that can completely 'skew' what should and shouldn't be considered to be 'normal' vs. 'abnormal'.

We have talked about psychology, the beginning of object relations, and similar 'homeostatic' and 'compensatory' principles at work in medicine, biology, and bio-chemistry as well.

Now let us step outside of both psychology and medicine for a few minutes and talk about the principle of 'homeostatic dialectic-democratic balance' in ethics, politics, national, and international law.

For example, if you have a type of leadership and law in Afghanistan that says 'it is essentially okay for a husband to rape his wife', then this is perhaps the type of law that needs to be a looked at and ethically criticized and challenged from a more 'global-egalitarian-democratic' set of beliefs, values, and laws than a culture that is still deeply entrenched in a form of 'patriarchal-male biased preferentialism, discrimination, and narcissism' (like Afghanistan).

Now as I started to argue elsewhere (and stopped for the time being because I backed away from highly provocative, controversial, politically volatile material that needs to be democratically addressed, and I will open this subject matter up again right here), it is equally incumbent for any society with a 'global-egalitarian-democratic set of beliefs, values, and laws to be equally critical of any type of cultural-society based homeostatic balance that is skewed to either the left or the right, up or down -- skewed towards either white or colored people, skewed towards either men or women -- because 'reverse-discrimination' and 'reverse-preferentialism' is just as much 'discrimination' as the more 'commonly discussed and watched for' brands of discrimination and preferentialism.

It is a very common phenomenon in human history that first the 'pendulum of social, political, and legal justice and injustice swings way too far one way' and then in an effort to correct this problem, to compensate for it, overcompensating measures are put in place that distort the balance of justice in the opposite direction.

The pendulum of justice first swings too far one way (thesis: preferentialism to 'white males', and discrimination against non-whites and/or against women); then swings back too far the other way (anti-thesis: eg. 'affirmative action projects', preferentialism to non-whites and/or women, and discrimination against 'white males').

There is all sorts of different types of discrimination in any type of society -- from the family on upwards to government -- some more openly blatant, dominant, and publicized; other types more covert, hidden, and sneaky, coming from unexpected places -- like the government that is supposed to lead the way in acts of 'egalitarianism' and 'equal rights/responsibility democracy' committing acts and laws of 'reverse-discrimination' against 'whites', 'males', and/or 'English-speaking Canadian citizens'. Some of this was addressed during the Preston Manning era, and/or once Stephen Harper became Prime Minister. Most blatant 'affirmative action' programs have been eliminated in Canada -- as they should be and have been -- because they are blatantly 'reverse-discriminatory'. I remember a few articles on reverse-discrimination finally hitting the Toronto Sun. At the time, back around 1995, I remember seeing all these job postings on government and semi-government walls that basically read: (White Males Need Not Apply): 'Preference Will Be Given to Ethnic Minorities and/or Women'. If the postings had stated the reverse -- Ethnic Minorities and Women Need Not Apply: 'Preference Will Be Given To White Males -- the country -- particularly ethnic minorities and women -- would have gone rhetorically ballistic. But white males didn't seem to know how to handle the situation -- (and they still don't) -- this was the first time they had ever been discriminated against -- suppressed, repressed, and oppressed -- under a 'veil of political correctness'. At this time there was a massive subtraction of federal funding to the provincial Mike Harris-Conservative Government and, at the same time, I believe, additional expenses were being downloaded from the federal government to the provincial government. This was very sneaky, dirty, and underhanded on the part of the Federal Liberals -- they looked like the 'good guys' in the process of eliminating massive amounts of federal debt while downloading federal expenses onto the provinces, subtracting federal revenues to the provinces -- leaving the provinces to feel the full extent of a huge budget crunch and crisis, particularly Mike Harris' Ontario Conservative Party, and thus, the necessity of cutting thousands of Canadian Government -- and Semi-Government (Contracted) jobs, as well as closing major hospitals and under-funding all educational institutes. I'm all for eliminating needless expenses and cutting government when it gets too 'fat, lethargic, and bureaucratic' but this action on the part of The Liberal Party was politically dirty as it allowed them to 'take responsibility -- and the accolades -- for a massive reduction of federal debt on the backs of the provinces -- particularly the Mike Harris Ontario Conservative Premier -- who looked terrible with all the loss in jobs, hospital closings, and underfunding of educational institutes in Ontario. Chretien, in effect, 'played' Harris to be the 'unjustified-pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey bad guy'.

I was getting sick of my job by this time, 12 years on the job, making a very comfortable salary, but wanting something different, I wanted out, and took a severance package as well as my pension plan to leave. However, at the same time, I was partly being pushed out by a management team that was given three mandates which they mixed together into one 'kill two birds with one stone' massive downsizing project: 1. cut expenses; 2. cut employees; 3. hire and/or keep more minorities and/or women (a part of the preceding NDP 'left-central', Bob Rae led Provincial Government and his (and/or Chretien's) 'affirmative action' (reverse-discrimination) program.

I lost my job to a young, smart colored woman with a bright future but who didn't have a tenth of the 'job knowledge' that I had. (Obviously, this is a partly or fully biased opinion on my part but I had been doing my 'scheduling' job for 12 years, and this woman didn't have any job experience or knowledge at all relative to 'knowing where customers and streets were'.) No matter -- computer dispatching was coming in (also designed to cut jobs and costs) and a substantial 'savings' was made on my replacement: she was hired 'part-time' at a substantially lesser salary with no benefits. A substantial savings to the company and also a 'fulfillment of their affirmative action mandate'.

My point here is simply this: discrimination and preferentialism can work both ways, and reverse-discrimination can actually be 'mandated' by the government in the name of 'affirmative action' and/or some other means of 'overprotecting' minorities and/or women -- even the name 'minority' is becoming more and more of a 'misnomer' as population numbers of many so-called minority groups keep rising and rising. I have no problem with this -- just stop calling them 'minorities' if or when numbers don't indicate this to be true anymore.

Again, my purpose here is not to 'heat up any type of racial and/or sexual war' because I view myself as an egalitarian philosopher but sometimes as an egalitarian philosopher you have to come out and say what other people, and even other philosophers, won't say. I certainly think I know how Freud felt when he was vilified in 1896 amongst his medical peers and superiors for 'stirring up the issue of child abuse'. It wasn't 'politically correct' to talk about it then in a dominant, narcissistic, patriarchal society.

Now we have a reverse situation where any talk or any call to debate the problem of 'some minority groups' or 'some women and/or women's groups' being narcissistically discriminative in themselves, and/or demanding 'preferential treatment' in the name of equality -- particularly when this potential discussion is opened up by a white male -- is likely going to be met with 'rhetorical derision' and 'screams of 'discrimination', 'racism', and/or 'sexism'.

The whole issue of 'racial profiling' -- or not -- was opened up by President Obama the other day in the case of the black Harvard professor being arrested by the white police sergeant for breaking into what turned out to be his own home. The story -- as with many stories of this nature whether dealing with alleged 'racist' or 'sexist' behavior, or domestic assaults, or sexual assaults -- was not/is not 'black and white'. That is why we all need to be more skeptical and patient when either the 'race card' or the 'sex card' is played until all the evidence on both sides of the story is communicated as best as possible.

.........................................................................

From the internet....Obama Attacks Cambridge Police Department

Harvard Professor's Arrest a Tale of Race, Crime, and Politics
During his press conference, President Obama weighed in on an incident involving the Cambridge, Massachusetts police department and an African American Harvard Professor named Henry Louis Gates.

Professor Gates was seen by a neighbor forcing open the door to his own home. Apparently not recognizing Professor Gates, the neighbor reported that a burglary was in progress to the Cambridge Police Department. The
Obama Attacks Cambridge Police Department
police arrived and found Henry Louis Gates inside his own home. From there the accounts get a little murky.

Gates claims that he showed his ID to the police, proving that he was breaking into his own home, having forgotten his keys. The police, according to the arrest report, tell a different story. The arrest report suggests that Henry Louis Gates refused to provide identification and verbally abused the officers on the scene, calling them "racists", before being taken into custody for disorderly conduct. The charge was later dropped.

President Obama, who is a personal friend of Henry Louis Gates, suggested that the Cambridge Police Department "behaved stupidly." Perhaps so. Indeed, it's a standard joke around many police departments that "disorderly conduct" often translates to "annoying the police officer." Being yelled at and called a "racist" is certainly annoying.

Seargent James Crowley, the arresting officer, doubtlessly acted as he would have with any other suspect, of whatever race. Unfortunately, because of the high profile nature of both the case and the arrestee, James Crowley now has to defend himself against charges of racism. Everyone who knows Seargent Crowley has labeled the charge absurd

At the same time, President Obama's good friend could also said to have acted stupidly if he did not quietly hand over his ID and explain why he had to force his way into his own home. One ought not to yell and abuse people with badges and guns, even if one feels entitled to play the race card at such moments.

....................................................................................

DGB


I believe that the current domestic and family court laws in Canada as well as all 'sexual assault' laws and applications of these laws need to be reviewed. I am all for protecting women from domestic and sexual assaults but not to the point where women are always stereotyped as 'victims' and men are always stereotyped as 'victimizers'. Again, this is 'reverse-discrimination' -- and 'sexual profiling', no different than 'racial profiling'.

'Two wrongs do not make a right.' Not in my books anyway. Equal civil rights means 'no skewing of justice to either the left or the right in society, no skewing of justice towards blacks, browns, or whites, males or females, rich or poor...

As soon as we start moving towards any form of 'selective affirmative action' and/ or 'pre-planned profiling' program, regardless of which way we skew any of these programs, we are basically advocating a social, political, and legal acceptance of 'racial and/or sexual preferentialism and (reverse)-discrimination'.

No one likes to be discriminated against on the basis of skin color, sex, money, race... -- black, brown, or white, male or female, rich or poor -- all is equally socially, politically, philosophically, and psychologically unacceptable.

'Trying to make up for past racial and/or sexual injustices is a very dangerous social path to go down. You are just going to create more social injustices -- in the opposite direction.

As one civil rights activist once said or wrote -- I believe it might have been Bob Marley, and someone please correct me if I am wrong, and in no way do I have the original exact quote, I am both paraphrasing and extrapolating -- a person's sexual, ethnic, racial, and/or monetary status -- when it comes to equal civil rights -- shouldn't make any more difference than the color of his or her eyes.

The one exception -- if you have any kind of a liberal, altruistic philosophy and caring in your heart - might be enough 'social, medical, and educational assistance' to help those at the very bottom of the socio-economic totem pole to survive from day to day, without having to live on the street and/or without heat or food or medical attention, or education. Here, hopefully, we can find some way towards helping these people -- indeed, all people -- move towards a better life. Particularly, those who are motivated to help themselves.

Now 'how much social assistance should be given' and 'under what particular circumstances' is a debate that I have no intention of getting into now or at any time in the near future. I will leave that for the 'democratic process'.

When money and jobs are short, and/or the money in government is seen by the 'general people' to be moving in the wrong direction, we can expect that most people are going to feel 'less generous' as they seek to stabilize their own lives, and the lives of their families, first.

This may be part of the problem President Obama seems to be facing now in terms of his 'medical agenda'. There are still 'mixed feelings' on the last couple of 'stimulus packages', where they are going, who is getting the money, how is it being used, is it being used for what it was purported to be used for, are there actual new jobs being created, new bank loans going out to businesses and the general people -- or all these intended purposes all a 'sham', and lining more of the wrong people's pockets and bank accounts while the public debt soars into the greater trillions of dollars.

The American debt has become an American issue -- amongst Republicans and Democrats alike.

I think we have exhausted our discussion for today.

The discussion of 'homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balances and imbalances' are relevant to all philosophical, psychological, medical, social, political, economic, racial, sexual, and legal subject matters.

In my opinion -- and this defies Hegelian tradition and history -- it is impossible to be a full-fledged Hegelian or post-Hegelian philosopher without being a 'Centralist' philosopher because a Hegelian/Post-Hegelian philosopher should always be looking for that 'point of homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance' in the middle between two extreme, often conflicting, polarities.

Every situation where such a conflict arises, a particular case example where there is the possibility of 'lack of communication', 'lack of transparency', lack of the full context of the situation', a 'dispute of beliefs and/or values', a 'disagreement over what is right or wrong', 'what is racist and what is not', 'what is sexist and what is not',

A full disclosure of all the particular details of the situation, from both points of view,

In the right 'open-minded-egalitarian-oriented-democratic environment',

To quote President Obama the other day,

Provides the possibility for a 'teachable(-learnable) moment',

Not all of the time,

But definitely more of the time.

When people can 'objectively look at the situation',

And put their 'narcissistic special interests aside'.

This requires a different type of training,

Than the training we have become used to,

Special interests here, special interests there,

Who's getting the money? Who's not getting the money?

Who's being discriminated against? Who's being treated preferentially?

In the end it comes down to this:

Do we believe in 'narcissistic, special-interest, preferential rights'?

Or do we believe in 'full-blooded, egalitarian equal rights and responsibilities'?

I believe in the latter.

Hegel's Hotel: DGB Philosophy supports the latter, not the former.

And I will take whatever 'heat' comes my way for believing this.

-- dgb, July 27th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain

-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism,

-- Dialectic Gap-Bridging Negotiations,

-- Are still in process...

...........................................................................

A Short 'Four Element' Mythological-Philosophical Essay

Just finished...July 25th, 2009.


Many '4 or 5 point'/4 or 5 basic element' models of life and the personality have been offered many times before me. These models have deep, deep roots in Western and Eastern mythological-philosophical history.

I will offer one such model -- an integrative one of sorts.

Imagine a compass with the four points: west, south, east, north.

In this partly simple, partly complicated DGB 'multi-bipolar mythological-philosophical model of life and the personality', these four compass points represent four different oppositional but also holistically intermixed points of profound human -- Godly and/or 'Anti-Godly' -- influence and motivation.

Nothing is simple -- particularly in Greek and Roman mythology.

And nothing is simple when it comes to 'classification systems'.

Classifications systems can and will never be perfect. This can drive certain 'perfectionist individuals' (myself included) to the brink of insanity. Because no matter how hard you try, no matter how hard you work, your/my 'classification system' will always be imperfect -- it can never be any different.

Classification systems come from man's 'representational, metaphysical, phenomenal, subjective, sensory-perceptual, assumptive-interpretive, conceptual-theoretical world of ideas as first and primarily denoted by Kant in his classic philosophical treatise: 'Critique of Pure Reason'.

In contrast, life occurs on an 'immediate, non-representational, noumenal' dimension that is at least partly above and beyond any form of human comprehension. Our 'subjective, conceptual-theoretical, metaphysical, representational world' can always partly understand the domain of life but never entirely.

And no classification system will ever be perfect.

Whenever you think you have a perfect classification system, whenever you think you can say 'This is a man' and 'this is a woman' -- there will always be someone who comes along who put this classification system into confusion and uncertainty, someone, for example, who has both sets of sex organs or someone who has the sex organs of a man but the psychological mindset of a woman -- or visa versa.

No classification system is perfect.

To use another example from Greek mythology, I pick out the Greek Goddess 'Hera' -- Goddess of 'family and marriage'. And I envision this 'perfect family woman, this perfect mother, this nurturing mother and wife'.

And then I read about Hera in Greek mythology and I find out that she showed none of these 'motherly' characteristics. Indeed, she abandoned her 'ugly and lame' son -- Hephaestus (God of fire) as did his wife 'Aphrodite' (goddess of beauty, love, lust) who had an affair with Aries (the God of war).

I read this and I think to myself -- 'This sounds like human nature, human behavior -- i.e., a motivational mess -- as opposed to some easy to classify Godly ideal'.

I look at this and I see either of two possibilities: 1. either the Gods are out there 'cross-fertilizing' with each other, and 'cross-fertilizing' with humans -- and thus everything in the lives of humans has become exactly like the nature and the behavior of the Gods before them: the Greek and Roman Gods are in effect our parents and our own lives have become as motivationally and emotionally messed up as our 'parents'; or 2. as humans we have a very 'rich creative, projective fantasy life' in which we (or the Greeks and Romans) envisioned their/our Gods as having lived lives that were just as emotionally mixed up and messed up as their/our own lives.

Either way, these so-called Greek and Roman 'Godly ideals' often behaved in ways that were far from 'any so-called ideal'. Hera is a perfect example. Here she is supposed to be an 'ideal, maternal mother and wife' and much of her behavior shows the opposite. She rejects her son because he is ugly and lame, and she is constantly try to find new and different ways of 'getting back' at her husband -- Zeus -- who was always running and/or flying around and having various affairs on her with different Goddesses and/or humans.

So much for 'Godly ideals'.

Thus, my dilemma becomes: Do I make up some 'Godly idealistic classification system' that seems to have nothing to do with how these Gods actually behaved; or do I scrap this project altogether.

One way or the other, it would seem that the world of Greek and Roman Gods was, in effect, no different than the world of humans in this respect:

Godly ideals, idealism, realism, and Anti-Godly ideals were constantly intertwined -- it seems virtually impossible to find the one with out finding them all.

Again -- so much for 'perfect classification systems'.

Thus, what I will try to do instead is find some way of bringing this information together in a classification system that mixes 'Godly ideals, idealism, realism, and Anti-Godly ideals.'

I will use the four directions on a 'compass' in order to illustrate my 'double bi-polarity'.

Before I do this you need something to refer to so you can see at least partly where I am getting my interpretation from:

.........................................................................

List of Greek mythological figures

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Greek gods)


Ancient Greek Religion
Main doctrines
Polytheism · Mythology · Hubris
Orthopraxy · Reciprocity · Virtue
Practices

Amphidromia · Iatromantis
Pharmakos · Temples
Votive Offerings · Animal sacrifice

Deities

Twelve Olympians:
Ares · Aphrodite · Apollo
Athena · Demeter · Hades · Hera ·
Hermes · Hephaestus · Dionysus ·Poseidon · Zeus
---
Primordial deities:

Aether · Chaos · Cronos · Erebus
Gaia · Hemera · Nyx · Tartarus · Oranos
---
Lesser gods:

Eros · Hebe · Hecate · Helios
Herakles · Hestia · Iris · Selene · Pan · Nike
Texts

Iliad · Odyssey
Theogony · Works and Days

See also:

Decline of Hellenistic polytheism
Hellenic Polytheistic Reconstructionism
Supreme Council of Ethnikoi Hellenes
This box: view • talk • edit

A listing of Greek mythological figures. See also family tree of the Greek gods and the list of Greek mythological creatures. For a list of the deities of many cultures (including this one), see list of deities.
]

* 1 Immortals
o 1.1 Olympian deities
o 1.2 Primordial deities

1.1. Immortals

Olympian deities
Greek name English name Description

Aφροδίτη (Aphroditē) Aphrodite Goddess of love, lust, beauty, wife of Hephaestus. Ares is her lover. Eros is her son. Known as the most beautiful of the Greek goddesses. Her symbols are the scepter, myrtle, and dove.

Aπόλλων (Apollō) Apollo God of music, medicine, health, prophecies, poetry, and archery. Also said to be the god of light and truth. Is associated with the sun. Also referred to as the most handsome of the gods. He is Artemis's twin brother, and son of Zeus. His symbols are the bow, lyre, and laurel.

Άρης (Arēs) Ares God of war, murder and bloodshed. Brother to Athena, and is the son of Zeus. Has an affair with Aphrodite. His symbols are vultures, dogs, boars, and a spear.

Άρτεμις (Artemis) Artemis Goddess of the hunt, wild things, and the moon. Protector of the dewy young. She became associated with the moon. Apollo is her twin brother. Artemis is a virgin goddess. Her symbols are the bow, dogs, and deer.

Αθηνά (Athēna) Athena Goddess of wisdom, warfare, strategy, handicrafts and reason. Sister of Ares, and is the daughter of Zeus. Sprung from Zeus's head in full body armor. She is the wisest of the gods. Her symbols are the aegis, owl, and olive tree.

Δήμητρα (Dēmētra) Demeter Goddess of fertility, agriculture, grain and harvest. Demeter is a daughter of Cronus and Rhea and sister of Zeus. Her symbols are the scepter, torch, and corn.

Διόνυσος (Dionysus) Dionysus God of wine, parties/festivals, madness and merriment. He represents not only the intoxicating power of wine, but also its social and beneficial influences. His symbols are the grape vine, ivy, and thyrsus.

ᾍδης (Hades) Hades God of the underworld and wealth. Brother of Poseidon, Zeus and Hera, and consort to Persephone. His symbols are the bident, the Helm of Darkness, and the three-headed dog, Cerberus.

Ήφαιστος (Hēphaistos) Hephaestus God of fire and the forge (god of fire and smiths) with very weak legs. He was thrown off Mount Olympus as a baby by his mother and in some stories his father. He makes armor for the gods and other heroes like
Achilles. Son of Hera and Zeus is his father in some accounts. Married to Aphrodite, but she does not love him because he is deformed and, as a result, is cheating on him with Ares. He had a daughter named Pandora. His symbols are an axe, a hammer and a flame.

Ήρα (Hēra) Hera Goddess of marriage, women, and childbirth. Zeus' wife and sister. Appears with peacock feathers often. Her symbols are the scepter, diadem, and peacock.

Ερμής (Hērmēs) Hermes God of flight, thieves, mischief, commerce, and travelers. Messenger of the gods. He showed the way for the dead souls to Hades's realm. He shows up in more myths than any other god or goddess. Likes to trick people and is very inventive. Hermes invented the lyre using a turtle shell and sinew. His symbols are the caduceus and winged boots.

Ἑστία (Hestia) Hestia Goddess of the hearth and home, the focal point of every household. Daughter of Rhea and Cronus. Gave up her seat as one of the Twelve Olympians to tend to the sacred flame on Mount Olympus for Dionysus. Her symbol is the hearth.

Ποσειδῶν (Poseidon) Poseidon God of the sea. He created horses from sea foam. God of earthquakes as well. Also called 'Earth Shaker' and 'Storm Bringer'. His symbols are horses, sea foam, dolphins, and a trident.

Ζεύς (Zeus) Zeus The king of the gods, the ruler of Mount Olympus and the god of the sky and thunder. His symbols are the thunderbolt, eagle, bull, and oak.

1.2 Primordial deities

Greek name English name Description

Αιθήρ (Aithēr) Aether God of the upper air.

Χάος (Khaos) Chaos The nothingness from which all else sprang.

Κρόνος (Kronos) Kronos or Cronus Titan of eternal time and father of six of the Olympian gods. Cronus (Kρόνος) and Chronos (Xρόνος) are two separate entities altogether. Cronus or Kronos is the father of Zeus, Poseidon and Hades, whereas Chronos is the Keeper of Time. In addition, in the Greek language "χρονια" means "year" or "years" depending on accent.

Έρεβος (Erebos) Erebus God of darkness and shadow.

Γαία (Gaia) Gaia or Gaea Goddess of the Earth (Mother Earth); mother of the Titans.

Ημέρα (Émera) Hemera Goddess of daylight and the sun.

Ζέφυρος (Zephuros) Zephyrus God of the west wind.

Νύξ (Nux) Nyx Goddess of night. She is also the only being from which Zeus turned from when her son Hypnos, who had angered Zeus, hid behind her.

Τάρταρος (Tartaros) Tartarus The darkest, deepest part of the underworld.

Ουρανός (Ouranos) Ouranos God of the heavens (Father Sky); father of the Titans. He banished his children, the Cyclopes and the Hecatonchires, to the underworld
because they did not please him.

.................................................................................



The Astrology Signs (From the internet)

February 20, 2009 – 7:23 am

Astrology Signs

Aries: quick-start energy, no questions asked, take action, intensely focused in the present.

Taurus: maintaining what is already here, stubborn, slow-moving, sensual, very physical.

Gemini: thinking about all sides, playful energy, more uncomfortable with emotions.

Cancer: nurturing, emotionally bonding with love, focused on family, trying to please all.

Leo: creative, generous, wanting attention and approval from lots of people, honest.

Virgo: service to others, thinking carefully, wanting precise perfection but struggling to do it.

Libra: relationships, exhibiting harmonious behavior and beauty, decision challenges.

Scorpio: deep and altering changes, inward focused, intense energy underneath the surface.

Sagittarius: looking for truth through enthusiasm, lack of tact, independent, fun-loving at any expense.

Capricorn: structured and responsible, work and discipline, ambitious, learning how to have fun.

Aquarius: group identity and association, philosophical and questioning, harder to take action.

Pisces: healing and sensitive, very receptive to all emotions, losing the ego, less focus.

The interaction of the Sun’s sign with all the other planets in your chart, their signs, and the connections they make with one another all give depth and variety to the infinite combinations of personality, character, relationships, and even fate. These descriptions above just scratch the surface of astrology signs !

Astrology shows that free will and fate can exist together at the same time. Now this topic is typically so deep and mysterious that it can bring on migraine headaches to those who haven’t pondered such concepts before. But this is my take from my zodiac experience: One can have a likely path in life, like a sailboat on the ocean current. But free will allows you to navigate however you want in getting from that first point to the next. Astrology is full of exciting information that can really give great insight into much more than just personality. It is a guidebook and a forecast, that with proper action, can make you proactive about the future in making the best choices for you, rather than passively watching. It’s really a tool to empower you in giving your best in life and applying your strengths to make yourself and all around you the best it can be!


...............................................................................


DGB



The Four Elements (or 'Compass Points')


As I said above, I will use the four directions on a compass -- i.e., 'compass points' -- to illustrate my 'double bi-polarity, mythological-philosophy model here.


1. Direction; a. Basic Element; b. God(s); c. Philosopher/Leader; d. Description/Interpretation/Characteristics; e. Philosopher(s) f. Main Energy

Example

1. North; a. Sky (Air, Heavens, Wind) b. Zeus c. Plato, Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, Kant, Hegel, Nietzsche, (Ruling From Above -- arrogance, power, leadership: Common Horoscope: Leo); or striving to fly -- idealistically ambitious, visionary, abstract, dreamy, head in the clouds, creative, not always very well grounded: Common Horoscope: Pisces); main energy is a 'yang-testosterone-oriented energy'

2. West: a. Fire; b. Aphrodite/Venus/Cupid/Dionysus/Hades/Aries/Athena/Satan; Heraclitus, Schopenhauer, Marx, Lenin, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Nietzsche; Passion and fire can be used in either a positive or a negative direction: either bonding people together in emotional passion; and/or blowing people apart in anger, rage, hatred, war, violence...mainly a 'yang, testosterone-oriented aggressive energy' such as fires burning out of control and/or a passionate, romantic energy' such as when fire is used in the control and comfort of a home or campfire...

3. South: a. Ground/Earth/Metal/Wood/Minerals/Vegetables/Plants/Animals/Biology/Nature/Natural Spirituality-Pantheism/Environmental Romanticism/Gaia/Hera/Hephaestus/Demeter/Artemis/Hestia/Aristotle/Spinoza/Schelling/Darwin/Einstein; grounded, loyal, trusting, family-oriented, security and safety-oriented, home-oriented, reluctant to take risks, uncomfortable when they are off the ground...mainly 'yin energy' unless any of these characteristics or qualities above are jeopardized or compromised...

4. East: a. Water/Seas/Oceans/Lakes/Depth/Insight/Poseidon/Apollo/Light/Sun/Moon/Tides/Reason/Tranquility/Peacefulness unless in the context of a hurricane, ocean storm, tidal waves, etc. where it is capable of drowning somebody...mainly a 'yin energy' unless or until this 'water energy' turns aggressive...Descartes, Spinoza, Kant...


The idea here is that we all need a balance between 'being grounded' (earth energy) and 'flying high towards our ideals (sky energy); and between utilizing the 'fire' of warm or hot passionate energy in balance with the 'peace, reason, tranquility, and wisdom of yin water energy' that is not 'pathologized into the aggression and drowning capability of yang water energy' which can happen if we metaphorically try to 'drown someone' (by flooding them with our emotions -- and staying there) and/or by 'drowning ourselves' (i.e., flooding ourselves with emotion -- and staying there).


Once again -- balance -- homeostatic, dialectic, democratic balance is the name of the game.

We all take our individual turns -- traveling to the extreme of one bi-polarity or another at particular points in our lives (some more than others). But the key remains: Can we come back and 'regain our homeostatic-dialectic-democratic balance'?

And live for the most part in peaceful equilibrium?

If we are constantly going off 'one deep end' or another,

Then perhaps we need to better investigate these circumstances,

By asking ourselves,

How?

And why? (without going off the 'deep end of analytic-interpretation' that in itself can take us to the outer stratosphere of abstract space and never bring us back to earth again,

Back to concrete living,

In Gestalt fashion,

Here and now,

I and thou.

Bridging the different Gods -- and 'Anti-Gods' -- between us.

-- dgb, July 25th, 2009.

-- David Gordon Bain

-- Democracy Goes Beyond Narcissism

-- Dialectical Gap-Bridging Negotiations...

-- Are still in process...

....................................................................