I know that sometimes people
have to talk over me
I'm not yet sure
if its a problem
I'm sure
I've got a streak of sadomasochism in me
that would make Freud kick a mule
I'm certain all heroes do
It's not a crime to imagine yourself brave
at least not in my book
Courage always Courage
and there is no unsure thing
I believe volume has power too
but not in the way
that preachers on the capital steps
use it
The real thing
is always an unconscious
byproduct of belief
that what one says is right
It's not a crime to believe something is right
not in my book anyway
Righteous always Righteous
and there is no unsure thing
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
i was driving down independence, leaving the Holocaust museum, when an ambulance, lights on, appeared in my rear view. I pulled over, but it stopped. I was confused. I waited for a moment; then drove off. The ambulance resumed its trek. Confused, i pulled over again, this time it passed.
ReplyDeleteThe whole time this thought process was occurring, and the actual event was taking place, K was talking to me.
yeah, i have a tendency to space out, but this was a different matter.
anyway, she became upset that i was ignoring her, and that, in turn, upset me, cuz i felt that her indignation was a bit off kilter.
her Argument: i should have told her i was not listening.
My rebuttal: i didn't realize i wasn't listening cuz i was distracted by the ambulance, in addition to operating the vehicle; safely.
K: that's ridiculous
A: that's how the human brain works
K: maybe yours
A: maybe...
At this point i brought out the ego argument. and claimed that her's was way too big; way too big. and that who gave a fuck if i didn't hear that story at that particular time. and that my main focus was to keep us alive on these crazy dc streets. Maybe too harsh in retrospect, definitely come off as an asshole in print, but whatevs, i stick by my main point...
indignation and its role in ego.
defensiveness and its role in ego.
my biased retelling of this event, and its role with ego.
and why the fuck did that ambulance stop to begin with?
I think you did the right thing
ReplyDeletein paying attention to the road
but I wonder if
"i didn't realize i wasn't listening"
really holds any water
Ego is the part of us
which acts according to
the Reality Principle
It is through the Ego
that we experience
Conscious Awareness
Ego is not the problem
Ego is not a bad word
Ego is the Rational part of our Psyche
Current Ideology
would have us believe otherwise
Our Ego is subservient to Ideology
Our Ego is also subservient to our Super-Ego
In the act of Submission
Ideology and Super-Ego
function as One
Your condemning of one Ego
mirrors
the Ideological Suppression of Ego
in that both suppress the idea of Ego
The Super-Ego dominates our Psyche
and we are not at the wheel
holds water like a pair of hands...
ReplyDeleteego is necessary, the trick is meta-awareness, which i was trying to coyly hint at with my story.
k's ego was hurt by my actions in choosing to pay attention to my environment. my ego was hurt by her indignation, as if i made the wrong decision.
we all need a stiff back bone, and, sometimes, i wish mine was stiffer.
but, also, civil discourse requires that meta-awareness of 'the self,' that willingness to not defend yourself for the sake of defending yourself, your "self"
the self: a bundle of abstract concepts that do not exist independently from everything else
but, so i've heard, the brain can only focus on one thing at a time; and at the time of the ambulance, i literally tuned out all other noises; one of those noises being K's voice. therefore, how could i know that K was talking if no information of 'her talking' was being processed?
this is the "evidence" i used to justify my "instinctual" "choice" to pay attention to other events that, in my "opinion," were of greater importance. so, as i saw, her indignation of being cross(ed) was erroneous; given the circumstances.
she disagreed
she also did not believe my evidence
i questioned her incredulity as an act of pure ego, not based in reason, but solely on the sake of defending herself
(btw, debating via print is way more fun for me than trying to talk over one another)
but, at the end of the day...
i am no scientist
i am no expert
i only carry with me vague notions of what Freud meant by id, ego, super ego in relation to what i know about Buddhist philosophy and concepts of the "self"
i am working to get to a point where arguing is seen as a constructive collaborative effort, with the shared goal of deeper understanding
i can't negate Ego's role
i can attempt to understand it
and seriously, why the fuck did that ambulance stop!!!!?????!!!!!??????
"we all need a stiff back bone, and, sometimes, i wish mine was stiffer"
ReplyDeleteGiggity
Alright
ReplyDeleteLet's hit this like it we mean it
I'm going to reorganize your example
according to assumptions
(assumptions are all we have)
I will outline the locus of each response
hypothetically
So don't get upset
if it looks like I'm saying something
that you just can't abide
it's no longer about you
leave your ego out of it
Think of everything which is said
as an object
floating in space
neither product of mind nor sense
but something tangible
though still out of reach
I won't hold too true to Freud
its not about him either
but I'll use the basic format of his psyche
The psyche consists of three parts:
Id, Ego, and Superego
The Id is your base nature
that which is purely bestial about you
your animalness
It does not then define you as human
it is that part of your existence
left over from your furry days
The Id acts according to the dictates of
The Pleasure Principle
which seeks to avoid pain
in the light of our baser instincts
The Id is the drive to copulate
the hunger in your belly
the primordial survival instinct
the seemingly irrational impulse
to bite the arm that chokes you
It is the consciousness we share with all animals
it is arguable if any animals have an Ego
(maybe some of the larger brained mammals)
The Ego is your rational consciousness
It weighs out options
determines the quality and quantity of things
The Ego acts according to the dictates of
The Reality Principle
seeking to appease the Id
in ways which will insure the greatest benefit
The Ego interprets the primitive signals of the Id
So you and I can say that the urge to make babies
is going to end up tied into a rubber
It is partly this process of interpretation
which defines the Self
the rest is your Ego's interpretation
of the hyper-rational impulses of the Superego
(and this is where Freud and I differ most greatly)
Freud thought the Superego
was an inborn part of the psyche
which imposed a higher set of ideals on the Ego
countering the impulses of the Id
by persistently socializing the Individual
That's pure bupkis
The Superego is an imposition on the Ego
by the Social Totality
In this way
The Superego acts according to
The Social Principle
which aims to conform
the Ego's interpretation of the Id
to existing social norms
(I have a fairly long paper
explaining how the Social Totality
becomes incorporated into the Psyche
I wont try and paraphrase it here
but it isn't hard to see it working
i.e.
The Id wants babies
so the Ego must find a suitable mate
the Social Principle dictates certain protocol
which the Ego must obey
in acting according to the Reality Principle
-
The secret is in how
the Reality Principle
is indistinguishable
from the Social Principle
in any social system)
So the Self is the manifestation of the Ego
mediating between the Id and Superego
The Self manifests as an Avatar
within the Social Totality
the manifestation of the Ego
as Object
through the Subjectivity of the Other
The Ego must acknowledge the Avatar
again, according to the Reality Principle
this acknowledgment of
the Self as Object is Self-Consciousness
Self-Consciousness is thus
the Ego's acknowledgment of its Self
within the Social Totality
Which is to say
Self-Consciousness is imposed upon by the Superego
so
Self-Consciousness is not the Ego
and
the Ego's manifestation is the Self
as a result
Self-Consciousness is not Consciousness of the Self
due to the imposition of the Superego
I believe the goal is (actual) Self-Consciousness
which is the liberation of the Ego
from the imposition of the Superego
Only then can the Ego
act according to the Reality Principle
and thereby fulfill its humanity
in interpreting the Id
according to the will of the Self
OK!
ReplyDeleteThe Rhetorical Situation
1. The negotiation with the Social Totality
2. The communication of the Other
3. The question of Self-Consciousness
1.
You were driving
the streets were hectic
an ambulance moved unpredictably
Your will to survive
stemming from the Id
demanded the attention of your Ego
2.
Whilst running from a Rhino
K attempts to seek pleasure from you
as the Ego is clearly functioning
in manifesting K's Self
then too is K's Self-Consciousness
(the Self as Object within the Social Totality)
In not acknowledging K's Self
you destabilize her Self-Consciousness
By failing to manifest yourself
within the Social Totality
in which her Self is apparent
her Self cannot manifest
according to the dictates of her Ego
for she has no access to the Social Totality
(the Social Totality requires an Other)
Now
what makes things complicated
is how K's Ego interprets
the impulses of the Superego
and thereby
defines the qualifiable parameters
of the Social Totality
You interpreted the Superego
as requiring your complete attention
K did not
This could be the simple result of Subjectivity
as your situation (running from Rhinos)
imposed upon your Ego
an aspect of the Social Totality
entirely different than K's
But I don't think that is the whole story
3.
You question each other's
Consciousness of Self
(already a mistake
since all you both really had
was Self-Consciousness
which by its nature
is not the Truth)
Feeling displeasure
K dictates that your role
(an interpretation of your Self in the Social Totality)
should be in the prevention of her displeasure
This reads like passive aggression
for in dictating your role
K cannot undo the displeasure
only insure against future displeasure
however
this does not ease the displeasure
(which the Ego demands)
in this way
by demanding you ease future displeasure
K was actually instructing you
to end the displeasure which existed at that moment
(the demand of the Ego)
Now
why:
K felt displeasure
from your lack of acknowledgement
and
proceeded to dictate your role
(assuming K has not liberated the Ego)
are both determined by the Superego
Not the Ego as you presumed
which might seem insignificant
but it is not
for the Superego
far from being irrational
is Hyper-rational
its reasonings are beyond the Ego
As I stated earlier
I still wonder if
"i didn't realize i wasn't listening"
really holds any water
Admitting that your Ego
negotiated with the Social Totality
in the best possible way
in paying full attention to the Rhino
In the light of the Superego
you did not communicate effectively
with K
It would make sense if you had announced
(perhaps after the first time the Rhino
began acting so unpredictably)
that your Ego demanded your full attention
in negotiating with the Social Totality
which is to say
that K was not your top priority
I would guess that the Superego
dictated that you making said statement
would not have produced the best results
So you acted
not according to your Ego
which would rationally have lead you
to include K
in your conception of the Social Totality
but the Superego
dictated an action contrary to your Id
resulting in the irrational occurrence of displeasure
Hopefully that helps