Well spotted Allan - maybe the others will catch up now!
On Saturday, 21 September 2013 08:46:45 UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote:
-- On Saturday, 21 September 2013 08:46:45 UTC+1, Allan Heretic wrote:
what do you expect Neil the economy is one big joke ... you have said that yourselfOn Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:47 PM, archytas <nwt...@gmail.com> wrote:Freud's Jokes and Their Relation to the Unconscious can be read as a fundamental economic and rhetorical treatise on a number of different levels. Viewed most basically, this work outlines the economizing mechanisms that Freud believes are at work in all unconscious psychic operations. In this regard, Jokes focuses on the third dimension Freud associated with his general metapsychological project, the first two being the topological and the dynamic aspects of psychic life. But on a more profound level, economic thought, structures, and metaphors invade Freud's text in its very rhetoric and discursive structure. However, the parallels between the economics and the rhetoric of this work do not end here. Jokes assume a privileged status in Freud's theory because, as acts of interhuman communicative transfer, they demonstrate that certain psychic structures not only operate unconsciously, but can also be consciously manipulated to achieve strategic psychological effects and affects in others. Jokes thereby manifest the social and rhetorical dimensions of precisely those "economic" principles by which they function. Ultimately, these very same joke mechanisms—deferral, displacement, repetition, anticipatory tension—inform the rhetoric and argumentative structure of this very treatise. Just as the joke-teller invests inordinate intellectual energy in the joke just so that he or she will receive a residual pleasure through the laughter of the joke-audience, Freud as author of this treatise deploys joke-mechanisms to win over his own readers in an effort to gain currency for himself as scientist, and for the project of psychoanalysis more generally.--Those Germans - you've just got to laugh! They even make a joke of economics.
On Sunday, 15 September 2013 09:27:35 UTC+1, Gabby wrote:Roughly speaking, the difference is the agreed upon difference within a historically evolved sociological entity as expressed and replicated in their language. These language barriers have never stopped me in assuming I understand the topic under discussion. Ahem. Ah well, I had myself affected by Molly's impuls and looked up how Freud had solved the consciousness/ awareness confusion. Here is a language excerpt from "Der Witz und seine Beziehung zum Unbewußten" by Sigmund Freud:"Beim Erwachsenen scheint es allgemeingültige Bedingung für den traumschaffenden Wunsch, daß er dem bewußten Denken fremd, also ein verdrängter Wunsch sei, oder doch, daß er dem Bewußtsein unbekannte Verstärkungen haben könne. Ohne Annahme des Unbewußten in dem oben dargelegten Sinne wüßte ich die Theorie des Traumes nicht weiter zu entwickeln und das Erfahrungsmaterial der Traumanalysen nicht zu deuten. Die Einwirkung dieses unbewußten Wunsches auf das bewußtseinskorrekte Material der Traumgedanken ergibt nun den Traum. Letzteres wird dabei gleichsam ins Unbewußte herabgezogen, genauer gesagt, einer Behandlung ausgesetzt, wie sie auf der Stufe der unbewußten Denkvorgänge vorkömmlich und für diese Stufe charakteristisch ist. Wir kennen die Charaktere des unbewußten Denkens und dessen Unterschiede vom bewußtseinsfähigen »vorbewußten« bisher nur aus den Ergebnissen eben der »Traumarbeit«. "He speaks of Bewußt-sein and the Un-bewußt-en. The pre- and suf-fixes make the difference here. He did not really differentiate between human- and god-consciousness. Speaking of really or reality, in German we are allowed to make a difference between Realität (reality) and Wirklichkeit (reality in effect). Quite useful sometimes.2013/9/15 RP Singh <123...@gmail.com>If consciousness is not awareness , what is it ? What is the difference between human consciousness and god-consciousness ?--On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 12:51 AM, Molly <moll...@gmail.com> wrote:
I think we are confusing consciousness with awareness in the conversation. Consciousness is. It is infinite. Some say that God is consciousness and we are the limited expression, like a passing thought. I don't know about that. But I do know that my awareness of consciousness, whether mental, emotional, spiritual or physical, can (but does not always) limit my experience of consciousness. Our viewpoint, vantage point, or sum total of our awareness in any given moment (or in some cases, the moment eternal) creates our own unique experience of life.When psychologists use the term conscious mind, unconscious mind, they are referring to a specific aspect of mind - what we are and are not aware of in our experience. When Freud hijacked the term, he knew that Hermetic philosophy used it quite differently. This subtle, yet significant semantic aspect of the conversation seems to be creating barriers to communication. Agreeing on the terms is important when delving this deep.
On Friday, September 13, 2013 6:29:10 PM UTC-4, archytas wrote:Butt away pol - we'll never bottom this one. We are sort of conscious of the unconscious as we have a name for it and can be aware of such as unconscious desires at some point. The only good god is a dead one RP. Saves on the embarrassment of him not turning up when asked. I'm tempted to say a dead immortal is a bit like a Cretan saying all Cretans are liars, Gabby makes sense and other such ... though there are known counterexamples on the latter two.
On Friday, 13 September 2013 15:54:34 UTC+1, RP Singh wrote:Is an unconscious God equal to a dead one? If that were so Life with order and intelligence wouldn't come out of it. We have become so used to thinking of oblivion as death that the possibility of the greatest power to exist in an unconscious state doesn't find acceptance in our belief-systems. Consciousness or awareness is a must for us , the finite individuals , but for the One who is infinite and the source of all , it would be limiting. Consciousness is limiting as it cannot be infinite and has boundaries , also it entails two , the creator and the creation , which is against logic at least to my mind.--
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out .
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out .
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+...@googlegroups.com .
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out .
--
(
)
|_D Allan
Life is for moral, ethical and truthful living.
Of course I talk to myself,
Sometimes I need expert advice..
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to minds-eye+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
0 comments:
Post a Comment