Freudian psychology... Ha!

"Everything would move like butter in regards to communication if people focussed more on truth and less on trying to boost their self-image to compensate for a lack of love they suffered as children."

If the past determines the present and the present determines the future - and time is endless - then the future will inevitably become both the present and the past.

We exist only in the present; our past selves and our future selves are myths. Wondering what you were like or what you'll be is pointless. Wondering what you are is fruitful.


"to compensate for a lack of love they suffered as children."

We are not compensating for things we did not have - We are compensating for things we do not have.

We are only condemned by our past in as much as we believe that we are.

Our liberation is neatly wrapped in the present of all presence!

right on! I like big words as well

Imagine if i was a Freudian orthodox, my college is a nest for those, which side of the sword would i point at you? Freud, you could not argue the man, he always brings you back to the same point, it's a hermetic theory, you cannot think outside of it, that's why i don't like it.
coming back to the topic...i could go on and on about psychic determinism and how your present Desire is a subconscious agencing of your past desires. Some kids just change toys but they play with it the same way, the same root motivation.
Theres something you said that will make what i said sound like blabber :

quote:

---

We are only condemned by our past in as much as we believe that we are.

---

is it a cultural thing? does self-counsciousness/ representation differ from one culture to another? and from one era from to another?
even though you may not like Freud, his impact was strong on how the human started perceiving hisself. He said it himself : 3 revolutionary events wounded the Man in his narcissism: Galilee ( the earth is not the center of the universe) , the Darwinian paradigm, last but not least freud himself by tellin' you that the ego is not even the master in its own domain.
Look at us now with our Cult of the past: bands trying to sound like the beachboys, our modern ye-ye's and the Victorian outfits on the catwalks...
Nietzsche is maybe one of the few who liberated the man "blessed are the forgetful" to serve your issue...
yeah but all those who came after him consecrated their works to pay an homage to him. Am i off-topic yet?

to Get back, let me quote you again"

quote:

---

"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance - Aldous Huxley"

---

I'm sure you see the link with this topic.
mhm... Now are we ever vigilant in the present? most are lost in their jobs (happy in self-ignorance) not to mention the amount of information we have to deal with everyday... dunno, i wish that this is not wishful thinking.

The last sentence is witty, but the post doesn't make a lot of sense. We don't experience the future or the past, but such categories (which comprise what is called the tensed theory of time) are so necessary to ordering our perceptions of the world that we cannot simply discard them. And in any case, the present can be infirmed on experiential grounds as well, since it is evanescent, fleeting and vanishingly small: and in conceptual terms it seems to have less authority than the past or the future, given that the term "present" must be applied after the fact, thereby effacing the very moment it affects to capture.

I may have gotten a little carried away with my opening post but let me try to get to the essence of the idea.

quote:

---

We don't experience the future or the past, but such categories (which comprise what is called the tensed theory of time) are so necessary to ordering our perceptions of the world that we cannot simply discard them.

---

Of course we can't discard them - it might even be more appropriate to say we can't escape them.

The decisions you made in the past (which was, at the time, the present) changed yourself and everything else in known existence along with it.

Basically Freudian psychology focuses on how traumatic events during childhood or how you were treated as a child determines how you behave as an adult.

Let's say you own a house and one day someone throws a rocks through all the windows. If you continue to live in that house, your behavior will most definitely change, especially during the winter season. You'll probably wear many layers of clothing to protect you from the cold wind that blows through the open windows while you're in your house.

If you know and remember that some guy threw rocks through all of your windows, no doubt you should either demand compensation or cut off association from that person... but that doesn't change the fact that you don't have windows.

So my beef with Freudian psychology is that people don't change their behavior because of something they didn't have or had too much of as children but because of things they don't have or have too much of in the present moment.

Fixing the problem in the present doesn't change the past, but it frees us from the chains of its effects. Self pity is useless.

quote:

---

And in any case, the present can be infirmed on experiential grounds as well, since it is evanescent, fleeting and vanishingly small: and in conceptual terms it seems to have less authority than the past or the future, given that the term "present" must be applied after the fact, thereby effacing the very moment it affects to capture.

---

Yah that's true, conceptually the present doesn't have much authority. Maybe that's why so many Yogi's say to just stop thinking and be aware.

I've been doing some researches in the constructivist theory of Piaget on developmental psychology and his concept seems the most appropriate when it comes to think psychological determinism. He doesn't imp
To Freud it's a matter of cause and effect, creating a distance between the individual and his past, While for Piaget we are a build-up. He doesn't mortify the person in his past, neither he claims absolute freedom. Maybe he see's us as unfastened puppets, just like pinocchio =)

There are 4 stages in Piaget's developmental theory: infancy, preschool, childhood, adolescence (i'm not going to get into giving definitions of these stages). The key concept of his theory is that each stage is the ramification of the previous one. this says it better than me "Piaget hypothesized that development is not a linear accumulation of discrete units of knowledge. Rather, he believed that periods of relative stability exist, which are necessarily followed by change, with a return to stability at a higher level of equilibrium. And this, as ChrisD see's it., gives presence to our person in the present.

Some easy meat for you die hards

Most of what is written in this thread seems like pointless nonsense to me .But then again i've never tried to study psychology or . physiologists theories

pupas last post seemed to me the most . plausible but four specific stages seems flawed ( Im going out on a limb here )

And if what I think your talking about is, what makes people who they are in the present .Would it not naturaley be a amalgamation of there life experiences, and what they believe they are going to experience present.past and future .
As Wit and pupa both touched on the present is gone almost as soon as it happens (to put into laymen terms for myself) But for us to reason with what is happening ,we make it seem longer .

quoting ChrisD
my beef with Freudian psychology is that people don't change their behavior because of something they didn't have or had too much of as children but because of things they don't have or have too much of in the present moment.

Is it not a basic fact of life that we learn from our/others mistakes. Something we've done wrong,doing wrong or will do wrong

As for freudian psychology never read/studied his work so right or wrong good or bad "Dunno"

Should I even be contributing to this thread

Should I have contributed to this thread

Will my contribution be of any use

the present is gone almost as soon as it happens
did i imply that?

if i forget about theorizing and interpret according to my intuition, i would say that we are in the constant presence to ourselves and through this presence we create possibilities of being. As for the past it was a present too. where we are at now is in the consequences of the decisions that we once took. this said we might as well choose another path if the present one seems blocking mylife force. there is a determinism but the human resides in overcoming it.

It's an act of free will and by this your contribution will be usefull and even a necessity in the means of understanding. If you have ideals of exactness and if there is such a thing as exactness, this will be a caroussel ride, spinning around a rabbit hole. if that's the case all of this forum, human communication will be the metaphor of a "yawning abyss".

by your member name i could understand why you will be asking such a question...a child doesn't think life, he's in a constant play with it. But the world we are living in, thinking would be the closest thing to what we are not living through our bodies: adventure.

Of all the ways I thought to answer this I am down to simply voicing a small part of my opinion. I don't want to go off subject.

Freud like every psychoanalyst who tried to document the human mind... Gave the opinion that a majority of the collective could agree with. What the majority of people would get help from. Gain understanding into who they are. This is only acceptable to those willing to believe what is said is true.

If you can not believe it, it will be of no help at all. The truth is what you believe it to be. And I once heard somewhere the truth will set you free. In the case of psychologists, I would agree. But I firmly stand by the belief that a persons best psychoanalyst would be his or her self.

No one can know you better than know yourself. Others can only help you understand what you find. Freud tries to explain everyone as working in the same way. We have to accept that some people simply do not function in accordance to the collective.

Every different explanation of how the mind works will find one person who believes it completely. - This would probably remain true even if the author didn't believe it, though that's subject to debate and may not be true.

[collective is my definition of so called "normal people". A majority of a said area. People who are "normal" in America may be considered "weird" in Africa. The collective are the so called "normal" people by accordance to your perception of those that are not weird. Popular at school - trend setters - the ones that 'fit in' opposed to those that didn't. The collective includes the ones that "tried" to fit in but failed. Even as adults did they ever stop trying to fit in?
Blind sheep follow blind sheep.]

I am weird. My friends are weird. Not all of my family are weird... Not everyone can be. - You may be interested to find out that in fact in school I 'WAS' one of the popular people. That is... I hung around with that crowd and everyone was happy to talk to me.
I 'chose' to turn into a social outcast. I seen the geeks, gimps and nobodies having fund, whilst we stood on corners smoking, drinking, making out... whatever. The nobodies were swinging from trees, doing mad tricks on bikes and smiling whilst walking down the street on their own. - I chose to stray from my flock and I have been happier since.

Sorry for going off topic at the end.
-Bucky.

I am my own psychoanalyst. Everyone who believes they do not need a psychologist is too. Maybe though, half of those that think they don't really do.