Distinction between the sadistic and normal character types:

In a sadistic person, for instance, the sadistic drive is a dominant part of his character structure and motivates him to behave sadistically, limited only by his concern for self-preservation. In a person with a sadistic character, a sadistic impulse is constantly active, waiting only for a proper situation and a fitting rationalization to be acted out. Such a person corresponds almost completely to Lorenz’s hydraulic model (see chapter 1) inasmuch as character-rooted sadism is a spontaneously flowing impulse, seeking for occasions to be expressed and creating such occasions where they are not readily at hand by “appetitive behavior.” The decisive difference is that the source of the sadistic passion lies in the character and not in a phylogenetically programmed neural area; hence it is not common to all men, but only to those who share the same character. — Ibid

Suggestibility in connection to the existential need for "a cohesive frame of orientation":

Part of the answer lies in the suggestive influence of leaders and in the suggestibility of man. But this does not seem to be the whole story. Man would probably not be so suggestive were it not that his need for a cohesive frame of orientation is so vital. The more an ideology pretends to give answers to all questions, the more attractive it is; here may lie the reason why irrational or even plainly insane thought systems can so easily attract the minds of men. — Ibid

"Character" defined:

While the concept of character will be discussed at length further on, it will suffice here to say that character is the relatively permanent system of all noninstinctual strivings through which man relates himself to the human and natural world. One may understand character as the human substitute for the missing animal instincts; it is man’s second nature. — Ibid

Existential emptiness as the source of the destructive impulse:

Instincts are a purely natural category, while the character-rooted passions are a sociobiological, historical category. Although not directly serving physical survival they are as strong— and often even stronger— than instincts. They form the basis for man’s interest in life, his enthusiasm, his excitement; they are the stuff from which not only his dreams are made but art, religion, myth, drama— all that makes life worth living. Man cannot live as nothing but an object, as dice thrown out of a cup; he suffers severely when he is reduced to the level of a feeding or propagating machine, even if he has all the security he wants. Man seeks for drama and excitement; when he cannot get satisfaction on a higher level, he creates for himself the drama of destruction... — Ibid

Character-conditioned passions linked to existential needs:

To put it briefly, instincts are answers to man’s physiological needs, man’s character-conditioned passions are answers to his existential needs and they are specifically human. — Ibid

Stand down, and stand by." Trump was directly ordering the Proud Boys. — Jackson

He said: "Stand back and stand by."

https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-joe-biden-race-and-ethnicity-donald-trump-chris-wallace-0b32339da25fbc9e8b7c7c7066a1db0f

At times I miss the spring fairies - but the demons had to go.

Mystique provides inspiration - chanting Trumpsters at the heart of hystery [sic] decapitating the tyrant Pence, for instance.

Over the last decade I've discovered a healthier path to inspiration - Maslow called it the peak experience - via various kinds of meditation and pseudo-hebephrenia.

Now I see it's accurate to call it a healthier aura of world-mystique. One not so infused with the dark hazards of the archetypes - possibly. Unformulatable for the moment.

Well noted and well expressed — igjugarjuk

Thanks. :cool: It's been good getting to know you. Welcome to the forums!

Also:

A diminishing of the negative potency of the archetypes implies an ameliorative transformation of the unconscious. When mother is just plain old mother and no more a mystique-laden dual mother-goddess (creative-destructive); when a king is just a man with a crown; when a nation loses its jingoistic aura; when the star spangled banner is just an interesting picture.

And especially the de-mystique-ification of the self: from ego-riddled baby lordling to - a man, no more, no less.

This de-mystique-ification of reality I take to imply a transformation of the unconscious.

To my view a comprehensive amelioration of (yes, conscious) dreamstuff or dream themes implies a transformation or amelioration of the dynamics of the unconscious.

See the Interpretation of Dreams.

Frued posited dream content to be a surfacing of unconscious material.

The unconscious, we have no control over it — Agent Smith

But we do.

If dreams are understood as a window into the unconscious, it's very much a possibility to refine or ameliorate dream content over time in sympathy with the willful maturation of the conscious mind.

For example: What was once a toothy nightmare wolf is now a licky cuddly docile puppy.

An example from my personal dream journal.

3. The Freudian revolution: The mind ain't special. — Agent Smith

Shouldn't the Freudian revolution read: The mind is a very special and edifying substance in light of the wild and enriching depths of the unconscious?

Postmodernism is a kind of luxury that most people cannot afford, and so are bound to deride it. — baker

More like:

[Philosophy] is a kind of luxury that most people cannot afford...

So who is who exactly? — baker

For the sake of argument: — ZzzoneiroCosm

If you want to discuss this:

The right-wingers say that the "self-serving and devious" are the leftists.
The leftists say that the "self-serving and devious" are the right-wingers.

They also differ in who exactly those "innocent masses" are.

So who is who exactly? — baker

...you might start a thread in the politics section.

For the sake of argument:

The innocent masses = folks who are easily manipulated

The self-serving and devious = marketeers working in cahoots with psychologists with the objective of making a buck via mass-manipulation


Protecting the latter from the former is just fine in a democracy. Not so in a society informed by laissez-faire.

Well, do you want democracy or not?

If the innocent masses should get to have a say, why shouldn't the expert psychologists and mass-manipulators have a say as well? — baker

If a nation has laws to protect the easily manipulated from a cahoots of the self-serving and devious, is that nation thereby not democratic?

You seem to be confusing democracy with laissez-faire.

Let her [Truth] and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worse in a free and open encounter? — Milton

For all his vision he hadn't the vision - can't blame him, of course - to forsee something like Facebook.

It has the optics of an abuse of power and that's always gross. It's unfortunate it can happen inadvertently.

Yep, well said :smile:

It makes you wonder how many other journals would have been fooled. So it has something to say about the pomo echo chamber. — ZzzoneiroCosm

... Or more broadly about the various echo chambers and sins of convergent thinking in Academia at large.

The supreme works of beautiful sculpture are sightless, and their inner being does not look out of them as self-knowing inwardness in this spiritual concentration which the eye discloses. This light of the soul falls outside them and belongs to the spectator alone; when he looks at these shapes, soul cannot meet soul nor eye eye. — Hegel

This bit is fascinating enough: suggesting the most concrete-seeming creations may hide a secret abstraction: the inhuman in human form.

Rich stuff.

I agree: a great prank that proves, at the very least, that distinguished folks at the journal in question can't always distinguish sense from non-sense.

It makes you wonder how many other journals would have been fooled. So it has something to say about the pomo echo chamber. I'm far from anti-pomo but appreciate iconoclasm of any kind.

Thanks for the quotes. I'll have to give them a close reading when I have time.

The Sokal Affair is relevant here, in case you haven't heard of it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair


"... an experiment to test the journal's intellectual rigor, specifically to investigate whether "a leading North American journal of cultural studies—whose editorial collective includes such luminaries as Fredric Jameson and Andrew Ross—[would] publish an article liberally salted with nonsense if (a) it sounded good and (b) it flattered the editors' ideological preconceptions.""

Ideally, philosophical systems are intended to provide maps to show the way out. In all organizations there are people seeking the way and some find it, even in psychiatry. — ArielAssante

Sure, there are lots of good psychologists out there doing good work.

I'm passionately committed to elusiveness of meaning in such anti-practical contexts, but I feel like this motherfucker is as chill as possible. — igjugarjuk

I like elusiveness of meaning but prefer some kind of possibly humanesque organ weirdly represented in the visual art I admire.

I Googled the name and I dig his color schemes; and the room full of black canvases is ingeniously inventive.

Art is some zen state of being. The opposite of business. Almost a negative theology of the (purified) idea of art. Probably the Japanese philosophers of nothingness are relevant here. — igjugarjuk

I think this is what I had in mind when I said 'a secret koanic intent.' The notion of creating an unintelligible or negative space resonates.

If I'm 100% certain there's a 50% chance, then there's a 50% chance. — Isaac

If I'm 100% certain there's a 50% chance, then I'm 100% correct that there's a 50% chance?

If certain, then correct?

That can't be right.

I can be 100% certain and also 100% wrong.

100% certain there's a 100% chance - with a 0% chance.

The old-age metaphysical question: Why is there anything at all? — Wheatley

Words have the power to do what a mind has no power to do.


So we continue to contrive formulations like the above. These words appear to present a question but in fact only express a wordless awe or astonishment.

There is no question here.

non-imagist, non-expressionist, non-subjective. — igjugarjuk

I don't quite get non-expressionist or non-subjective. Can a movement be alembicated to sterility?

Excellent quote. — igjugarjuk

If you like that one, Approximate Man would be your cup of tea. A hundred-plus pages of more or less sustained lucid illumination.

The one object of fifty years of abstract art is to present art-as-art and as nothing else, to make it into the one thing it is only, separating and defining it more and more, making it purer....more absolute and more exclusive - non-objective, non-representational... — igjugarjuk

Lyricless music was always that. I prefer the weirdly-representational to the non-.

I wonder if there's a secret koanic intent in perfectly non-representational art.

BTW, you yourself cannot even provide an explanation — L'éléphant

Not sure of what but you're likely right if it has to do with Derrida. I've only read three or four of his books.

My wanting him banned as a moderator — L'éléphant

The staff page corroborates my comment above:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/members/staff

My wanting him banned as a moderator — L'éléphant

According to his profile and my experience Streetlight hasn't been a moderator for some time now.

I took Derrida for one semester. — L'éléphant

Like I said: go read some more Derrida.

It's telling when a request for a substantiating quote is met with - "you should be banned."




Admit you haven't read enough Derrida for this dialogue, swallow your pride, eat your crow, and go read some Derrida. Pursue wisdom, not winning.


It's the beauty of anonymity: you can digest your glaring deficiencies in private.


It's obvious to anyone watching this slaughter - and who's read a few of his books - that you haven't read enough Derrida to have a leg to stand on.

Odd, but if that's what he wants to discuss... :smile:

fooling yourself. — Banno

Fooling myself that you pivoted from Wayfarer's "extreme flux" and "fragmented" to your own "adequate for facilitating the transfer of digital data via the internet"?

Do tell.

Nice pivot. But you can't fool me. :razz:

No, it isn't. — Banno

... Or are you playing the pre-1905 game here. Only way your comment makes anything approaching sense.