Cumbersnatch

[Genosse Kotze]

Ok, I just saw this Internet cartoon and it is quite bizarre to say the least! Now, my knowledge of Freud is very little having only read On Dreams, The Future of an Illusion, and Moses and Monotheism, I was hoping somebody here a bit more familiar with his work--especially that which examines childhood development and fears of castration--could help me analyze this cartoon.

Cumbersnatch (http://www.apocalypsecartoons.com/cumbersnatch/precumbersnatch.html)

I've noticed here in the philosophy forum not many people discuss psychoanalysis much, and I can't blame them cuz it's all Greek to me as well, but if there are any psychology majors here, or merely people who have studied Freud, who would be willing to help me understand this (or even just how seriously I should take it) that would be cool. Even if you don't know much about Freud this cartoon is a fucking trip, so be sure to check it out anyway.

Thanks

[Le People]

I'm sorry, I couldn't get through the cartoon. It came off as a bit too absurd to me. However, I can give pointers in Frued's theories of infantile sexualaity. In essence, Frued says everyone after they are born experince pleasure in the mouths and express it in the act of breastfeeding, hence they develop an Oedipus Rex complex. If it is too little or too large a complex, it could lead to homosexuality. Now, after so long, the child enters the anal phase in which they hold back their shit for pleasure, and recieve pleasure in their butt hole. Then, they transfer it to autoeroticism, in which they derive sexual pleasure from all regions of the body. Finally at four, comes the latency period in which there is no sexual arousals. This lasts till puberty. Thats what I understand, and one should remember, if you discuss Freud and sexuality, you're discussing male sexuality. Personally, I think he's full of shit, though some of this theory doesn't sound too bad.

[Genosse Kotze]

Haha. Yeah, the cartoon is very strange--like The Land Before Time meets Puppetry of the Penis. I always thought Freud was sort of sexist (penis envy) and a bit of a pervert. In Moses and Montheisim, a book where he gives an alternate acount of the Exodus and the development of the Jewish religion as a whole, he, don't ask me why, talks about how little boys feel sexual attraction to their mothers and come to resent their fathers, wanting to take thier place. Then comes some sort of threat of castration, which is supposed to scare their sexual impulses right out of them until they hit puberty. Or something to that effect, I can't rember all the details. But when watching the movie, if you can manage to get past the silliness of it, fear of castration is basically the only theme.

[BlessedBesse]

I just want to interject that if you're interested in Freud's stages of psychosexual development, but are disappointed that the man's personal and cultural viewpoints obscure the real signal with a lot of noise, you should check out Tim Leary's 8-circuit model of consciousness. It brings a lot of Freud and Jung's work together without being written by an Austrian coke addict who believes women are all just damaged men.

Robert Anton Wilson's "Prometheus Rising" is an excellent introduction, and can be found here: http://www.rawilsonfans.com/downloads/prometheus.pdf ... I know it's a long read, but it's totally worth it. I found parts of this to be real life-changing stuff.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Why does anyone bother with that charlatan Freud?

Freud's life and work was characterised by a level of duplicity, fraud, fabrication, intellectual dishonesty, invention, plagiarism, monomania, cocaine-induced madness, hero-worship, client maltreatment (and abuse), bluster, dissembling, lying and bullying (protected by a level of hero-worship among his disciples that merits its own analysis), unmatched in the career of almost any other prominent figure in recent history outside of big business, politics and organised crime.

Check out the essays here:

http://www.richardwebster.net/

And consult these:

Crews, F., et al. (1995), The Memory Wars (Granta Books).

--------, (1998) (ed.), Unauthorized Freud (Viking).

Thornton, E. (1986), The Freudian Fallacy (Paladin).

Webster, R. (1995), Why Freud Was Wrong (Harper Collins).

[Raúl Duke]

Most of Freud's ideas (and moreso Jung's; his idea are now part of literature analysis) are mostly discredited except maybe just "psychoanalysis" (aka "the talking cure") and some other little stuff.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JD, yes I know, and that just shows how confused such literary criticism is.

Freud's ideas are popular partly because they allow rank amateur psychologists, and non-expert, unqulaified individuals to diagnose the alleged illnesses of others.

Would we allow people to do that in medecine, say?

I think not.

Especially when Freud's theories are a mixture of fantasy, lies and guesswork.

[Freigemachten]

I'm a psych major and I've got a professor who puts a bit of stock in what Freud has to say. So I'll tell you basically what I gave him.

Freud was a fucktard.

Professor didn't really like that so I'll give you more.

Freud's methodology was hardly scientific, so a lot of his ideas are biased, inaccurate, and completely inadequate in modern psychology.

He was his own test subject for a lot of his work, which as anyone who knows a shit bit about science, medicine, treatment or observation can tell you, it is a fuckall way to go about it. So a lot of what you get about the nature of children and their feelings towards parents and the ways in which the develop are based on his childhood. Even when he had others to interview, he still wanted to find things his way, so his information is biased.

As far as child development goes, Erik Erikson was a bit more on it, but he was still kind of a dipshit. He believed that the way in which children are toilet trained influences whether or not they are organized or not later in life. But check out his work if you're interested in child development.

Also, look up Jean Piaget if you're interested in the development of cognition, he was very on it, very scientific and one of my favorite researchers on the subject of child development.

[JimFar]

If one doesn't mind looking at an old book, there is

Sebastiano Timpanaro's The Freudian Slip: Psychoanalysis and Textual Criticism.

[jaycee]

i think it is misleading to view Freuds view of childhood sexuality as 'sexual' in the same way as later pubescent and post pubbescent sexuality is sexual. It is much more of a generall pleasure of the body in relation to the outside world. Therefore the 'sexual' attraction to the mother is more to do with wanting to nunite with her and of the pleasurable feelings of feeding from her breast, any glance at babies will show how intensely they enjoy this experience.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

It is even more interesting how he made all this rubbish up.

[RedAnarchist]

That cartoon is just wierd. :blink:


And why would a penis be female?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAKN as was: what cartoon?


And why would a penis be female?

Presumably so that, as a female, it could not have any 'penis envy'.

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2007 01:56 pm
TAKN as was: what cartoon?


And why would a penis be female?

Presumably so that, as a female, it could not have any 'penis envy'.
The wierd animation.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Which one!!!

[RedAnarchist]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 09, 2007 02:45 pm
Which one!!!
The one linked to in the first post, with the wierd penis dinosaur things.

[gilhyle]

Sigmund Freud was in my view an extraordinary man. His ideas make sense not so much as schema for some putative a-historical science of human nature, but as tools of therapeutic intervention.

His views are widely misunderstood by people who transform them into rigid schema. The main purpose is to free the mind of the analyst from his/her preconceptions. Freud's theories have, for that reason, a mythic character. There are fools enough on the left who worship science to the point of forgetting that science is confined within capitalism and people have to survive under capitalism, despite the limitations capitalism places on science. People cant wait for the revolution to reform science.

his theories reflect and engage with some fundamental realities about therapy in capitalist society - in essence the fact that the therapist becomes an agent of dominant ideologies and dominant social relations within the therapeutic relationship.

Freud did not overcome that problem, but he engaged with it from within the society, creating a capacity for healing despite an environment of denial that was quite magical.

Yes he was part charlatan, part priest, part deceiver, part scientist, part healer....but there were people who needed help and he created the space to help them - in particular many many women whose mental problems were ignored and diminished by the society he lived in.

He was also one of the most amazing writer, a truly beautiful writer....and someone who recognised the Bolshevik revolution for what it was.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

He was a good writer, but that is all one can say in his favour.

He should have turned his hand to fiction...er..., oh, er, he did, and nothing but fiction (i.e., a priori 'psychology').

[jaycee]

did anyone see that story a few weeks ago in the Guardian which showed how neurologists studied the process of repression.

maybe Freud isn't so unscientific?

[Jazzratt]

What the flying shit was that?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JC:


did anyone see that story a few weeks ago in the Guardian which showed how neurologists studied the process of repression.

maybe Freud isn't so unscientific?

Freud is far too confused even to be unscientific.

[gilhyle]

To say something about the original question - I suspect that the fear of castration is less of an issue (at least in West European cultures) than it was when Freud wrote. This would be because the primary emotional experience gains its long term significance by the secondary processes that come later and are more subject to cultural changes and which have changed significantly since Freuds time.

However, you might want to have a read of the following pamphlet before you discount it:

Castration by Ivan Ward, April 2003

who believes he sees significant evidence of its continuing presence.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


However, you might want to have a read of the following pamphlet before you discount it:

Castration by Ivan Ward, April 2003

who believes he sees significant evidence of its continuing presence.

Yep, and I can point you to sites where they see 'significant evidence' for the existence of 'god'.

If Freud's theory is wall-to-wall b**llocks, it does not make it so far as to warrant being tested.

[gilhyle]

Rosa

There are more things in heavan and earth.....

Your point is clear, but not really debateable.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Rosa

There are more things in heavan and earth.....

For sure, but if we talk bo**ocks like Freud does, then no possibility has been presented for our consideration.

As I have said to you before, we could spend hours trying to figure out whether those pesky slithy toves really did gyre and gimble in the wabe, but we really have no need to, since that nonsense rhyme presents us with no possibilities.

That is also why I said Freud is far too confused for us to be able to say whether he is right or wrong.

He does not make it that far, no more than the Jabberwocky does.

http://www.jabberwocky.com/carroll/jabber/jabberwocky.html

[Sacrificed]

Freud should not be read as a psychologist. He was wrong on almost everything he wrote on the subject, and one does oneself a great injustice by trying to apply his works on a psychological level.

However - and here I'll no doubt be forced to fight off leftists of the 'scientific' variety - his works are useful from an ontological perspective. What exactly do I mean by this? Simply that Freud's tripartite division of the psyche contains within it one fundamental truth which almost makes up for his failure: he is among the first thinkers to recognize the ontological primacy of violence through what he called 'transference'. The world, as a collection of forces, imposes itself upon itself. It is not stable. This is what we take away from Freud in the literary department.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sacrificed:


Simply that Freud's tripartite division of the psyche contains within it one fundamental truth which almost makes up for his failure: he is among the first thinkers to recognize the ontological primacy of violence through what he called 'transference'. The world, as a collection of forces, imposes itself upon itself. It is not stable. This is what we take away from Freud in the literary department.

Looks like a priori psychology to me, dogmatically advanced, for which there is not a shread of evidence which is not itself similarly a priori and equally dogmatic.

Freud was a fraud.

[Sacrificed]

Looks like a priori psychology to me, dogmatically advanced, for which there is not a shread of evidence which is not itself similarly a priori and equally dogmatic.

This is not psychology. It is an ontological claim which can be traced back to Heraclitus.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

A priori and dogmatic ontology then -- and Herclitus was a confused ruling class mystic.

[Sacrificed]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 14, 2007 01:58 pm
A priori and dogmatic ontology then -- and Herclitus was a confused ruling class mystic.
It certainly isn't a priori. Regard the quantum level of existence: there are objects which appear out of nothingness, objects which can be in two places at once, and even objects which, passing through one another, do not disturb each other.

And Heraclitus - you do realize that there'd be no Hegel without him? Reactionary he certainly was; and in no wise is that a magic buzzword that will make his usefulness disappear.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Sacrificed:


It certainly isn't a priori. Regard the quantum level of existence: there are objects which appear out of nothingness, objects which can be in two places at once, and even objects which, passing through one another, do not disturb each other.

1) It certainly was a priori for Heraclitus, and Freud.

2) What has quantum mechanics got to do with this a priori ontology, anyway?

3) The above ideas are theoretical, and based on the reification of some highly abstruse mathematics.

In that case, even they are a priori.


And Heraclitus - you do realize that there'd be no Hegel without him? Reactionary he certainly was; and in no wise is that a magic buzzword that will make his usefulness disappear.

I am not sure you are right about Hegel and Heraclitus; there were countless mystics in the ancient world who said the same sorts of things as he did.

But, even supposing you are right, what a pity Hegel did not exist.

Humanity would have been better off without him.

[red eck]

This thread is a bit old now, but I would like to add what I experienced recently when I tried to get hold of a copy of the book Rosa recommended earlier: 'Why Freud was wrong' by Richard Webster.

I went to Manchester's central Library - no copies in circulation

I went to Waterstone's - they could only order it.

I then checked Amazon - only available second hand.

In the end I ordered it at Blackwells.

What I find remarkable is that you can easily get a hold of material promoting Freud's ideas, but really have to hunt for a copy of the definitive work that demolishes him.

I can recall years ago on a Newsnight special hosted by Andrew O'Neil (I think) discussing 'Greatest minds of the 20th Century' And the top three were: Albert Einstein, Charles Darwin and Sigmund Freud. Webster's book came out in 1995 to critical acclaim. But still, people want to maintain the legend that is 'Freudian Psychology', so much so that his reputation is preserved.

It'll be next week before I get my copy. Going by the book reviews, i'm anticipating this to be a good read. :D

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Hi, Red, there's loads of stuff on the internet that shows how and why Freud was wrong:

http://www.human-nature.com/freud/crews.html

http://www.human-nature.com/freud/crews4.html

http://www.human-nature.com/freud/crews3.html

http://www.human-nature.com/freud/crews2.html

http://www.human-nature.com/freud/tallis.html

http://www.richardwebster.net/freudsfalsememories.html

http://www.richardwebster.net/

The book you were trying to get was reviewed in Socialist Review a few years back, and a friend of mine subsequently had a go at John Parrington's review:

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr....htm#parrington (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr203/reviews.htm#parrington)

http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr...s.htm#jakubovic (http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/sr204/letters.htm#jakubovic)

[Raúl Duke]

ehh...Freud...

Why isn't he in the "dustbin of history" by now...?

Most (not necessarily all, but quite a lot; mostly the crap...although won't be surprise if some still hangs about in psychology. Hell, they keep up putting more crap in psychology like this mystic transpersonal "psychology" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transpersonal_psychology).) of his (and Jung's) theories are discredited, at least among the more "scientific" (usually those of both the behavioral and cognitive schools; there's even a combined orientation of psychology called cognitive behavioral.) psychologists.

Why are there people in the world who seem to want to hinder real understanding of human behavior and mental processes?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JD:


Why isn't he in the "dustbin of history" by now...?

Several reasons:

1) His 'theory' provides far too many 'therapists' with a lucrative income (especially in the USA).

2) It 'provides' rank amateur 'psychologists' with a 'licence' to 'analyse' others, without the need to buy a couch even. [This is particularly true of certain Marxists.]

3) It is an a priori system, and hence it meshes in with a 2400 years old tradition in philosophy. And for this reason, his theory is far more popular among philosophers than it is with professional psychologists. This is particularly true of that den of theoretical iniquity otherwise known as French Philosophy.

4) It provides plenty of material for other academics to spout their own a priori theories of literature, art, film, and the like -- which makes for 'better' CVs, and hence for professional academic advancement.

5) He was an exceptionally fine writer -- his only strong point.

Hence, his theory helps line far too many pockets for it to be abandoned any day soon.

[Raúl Duke]

1) His 'theory' provides far too many 'therapists' with a lucrative income (especially in the USA).

2) It 'provides' rank amateur 'psychologists' with a 'licence' to 'analyse' others, without the need to buy a couch even. [This is particularly true of certain Marxists.]

While it is true that it appears (can't really be sure...maybe there's a survey...) that Freudian (or neo-Freudian) Psychoanalysis or Psychodynamic Psychology seems to be the major school of psychology followed by therapists,

There are also other psychological schools of thought that can be used by psychotherapists.
I heard that the cognitive behavioral school has been proven effective in therapy than other forms.

Although, what amazes me is that in light of such recent studies some "psychologists" stick with such irrational crap. This is the stuff that drags psychology away from being a scientific field.

[gilhyle]

I can only throw my eyes to the skies in the face of the philistine, uneducated, comments on this thread, the craven idolatry of positivist conceptions of science, the self-satisfied inhumanity with which the sincere grasping for what capitalism places beyond our reach is sneered at...pathetic.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


I can only throw my eyes to the skies in the face of the philistine, uneducated, comments on this thread, the craven idolatry of positivist conceptions of science, the self-satisfied inhumanity with which the sincere grasping for what capitalism places beyond our reach is sneered at...pathetic

Well, we expect mystics and apriorists to like Freud, especially an a priori mystic such as you.

And where is the 'positivism' here?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JD you are right, but Freudian psycho-babble gave birth to much of this 'therapy'.

Don't get me wrong -- non-Freudan therapy I have no problems with.

Not that they need my approval! :D

[Raúl Duke]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 10:54 am
I can only throw my eyes to the skies in the face of the philistine, uneducated, comments on this thread, the craven idolatry of positivist conceptions of science, the self-satisfied inhumanity with which the sincere grasping for what capitalism places beyond our reach is sneered at...pathetic.
What is this? :blink:

Who is it aimed at? :huh:

At me?

Sounds like the ravings of a pompous delusional... :wacko:

While I might not know what sort of knowledge of psychology (and its field) you have. [Philosophy doesn't count!]

But in the class I have taken and the one I'm taking now all points out to the increasing irrelevance of Freud to current psychological knowledge.

Also, this doesn't back up your claims of uneducation: I have taken Psych courses and know quite a bit of what I'm talking about.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JD, Freudians almost invariably react this way -- check out the links I posted above.

You see, when you attack Freud, you are attacking a theory they think allows them to caste off all their woes and project them onto their parents/mothers/penis envy...

All self-diagnosed, too, and thus carried-out on the cheap.

So, if that theory is crap, their world falls apart -- dialecticians react in a similarly irrational manner.

If, as a lefty, you can see in its stark glory all the woes class division has inflicted on us humans, you need some form of consolation for the fact that it still continues to do so.

Dialectics provides a supposedly objective theory of consolation (i.e., have no fear, all will be well one day -- a sort of Negation of the Negation in the Sky), and Freudianism the subjective side: you feel crap because (if male) you wanted to screw your mother -- if female you had no dick with which to do that -- bah, blah...

Threaten either of these mystical theories, and you get both barrels. [You can see I regularly get both here!]

I have heard Gil's response more times than I care to mention.

I could, in fact, have written his/her script for him/her.

[I say 'his/her' since Gil used to classify her/himself as female.]

[gilhyle]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30, 2007 07:09 pm

Sounds like the ravings of a pompous delusional... :wacko:

Sorry, bad mood yesterday...I think it, but I shouldnt say it. Guess the repression mechanism wasnt working :unsure:

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

In that case, let's hope you abandon this mystical 'theory', too.

[gilhyle]

I wont abandon the recognition of Freud's greatness and his immense contribution to psychology....no more than I abandon recognition of Aristotle's amazing contribution to biology.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


I wont abandon the recognition of Freud's greatness and his immense contribution to psychology....no more than I abandon recognition of Aristotle's amazing contribution to biology.

Well, the latter was a genuine scientist, while the former is a demonstrable charlatan.

Are you sure you know the difference?

[gilhyle]

Rosa

I think you dont know what a charlatan is. Freud was profoundly sincere in his endeavours, sacrificed much for it. Reducing the matter to a personal one is pointless and all you have to support it is scurilous biographical material worthy of tabloids. What is at issue here is not Freud's personal integrity, but the fact that your judgement of Freud (and that of others here) leaps from his theories being supposedly 'wrong' to the conclusion that he did not make a significant contribution to the development of psychology as either a theoretical or practical science. Its just staggering that anyone could play so loosely with Freud's incredible contribution to the development of therapy.

And by the way, by your methods, Aristotle was a mystic also since his whole practice of science is riven with teleology.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Gil:


Freud was profoundly sincere in his endeavours, sacrificed much for it. Reducing the matter to a personal one is pointless and all you have to support it is scurilous biographical material worthy of tabloids. What is at issue here is not Freud's personal integrity, but the fact that your judgement of Freud (and that of others here) leaps from his theories being supposedly 'wrong' to the conclusion that he did not make a significant contribution to the development of psychology as either a theoretical or practical science. Its just staggering that anyone could play so loosely with Freud's incredible contribution to the development of therapy.

Nice piece of fiction; too bad the facts contradict it.

[Raúl Duke]

Actually, aren't both Freud and Aristotle superseded by other scientists/etc?

Although, there really is no reason to put Freud in a pedestal...He wasn't even the "Father or Psychology." That title was given to Wilhelm Wundt (although William James is considered also interestingly as the "Father of Modern Psychology", since he started research into many areas or delineated many areas of psychological research that people research even today.)

However, some psychological textbooks point out that his only "significant contributions" to psychology being psychoanalysis,psychoanalysis theory, and, the real possible contribution, psychotherapy.

Although the only real crowning achievement could be starting up clinical psychotherapy, this is somewhat very disputed by the existence of people like Pierre Janet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Janet).

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

JD, certainly Aristotle has been -- but then you'd expect that since he worked 2300 odd years ago.

Freud was never a scientist, but he has been superceded by other charlatans.

[red eck]

Check out this letter in the Guardian (UK), Friday October 12th 2007:

"Psychotherapists have failed to effectively communicate their considerable concern over the government's plan to train 3,500 cognitive behavioural therapists (Reports, October 11). We have allowed the proponents of CBT to caricature all other psychotherapies as delving unendingly into the patient's past and lacking any scientific validation as regards efficacy. Everyone knows the limitations of CBT - except, it would seem, the government. The science is inadequate, the methods naive and manipulative, and the reluctance to engage with the key aspect of psychotherapy - the deep and complex relationship that develops between client and therapist - really very careless. Clients who enter CBT are approached in a mechanistic way, required to be passive and obedient. Hence what is going to be on offer is a second-class therapy for citizens deemed to be second class."

-Professor Andrew Samuels, Centre for Psychoanalytic studies, Univeristy of Essex.

What grabbed my attention was the use of the word 'mechanistic' as a criticism. A similar line used by Dialectitians. Another similarity between Dialectitians and Psychotherapisits is that both claim to contain the 'key' aspects that make them so relevant.

The book I ordered, on the 29th Sept: 'Why Freud Was Wrong' by Richard Webster. Still has not arrived at the bookshop I had ordered it at. Just goes to show the MATERIAL reality of the power of strikes! Threat of competition my arse!

[Raúl Duke]

:lol:

Interesting that the news is attacking the form of therapy I prefer over psychoanalysis!

Whatever...notice that they quoted a psychoanalyst (i.e. Freudian) who "surely" isn't biased when it comes to CBT!

Also...he starts off right away talking about how CBT criticized all other psychotherapy techniques...he's sure annoyed that those CBT therapists ruin his psychoanalytical school's credibility.

(Although it is usually stated that CBT really does have better rates of success than other therapies.)

Remember that CBT is based on science (Cognitive school, which is quite "scientific" in most cases, with the use of brain scans and such, and studies mental process while Behaviorism which is basically very objective since they don't study mental process much and concentrated on observable behaviors) while dialectics and most/all of original Freudian psychoanalysis is based on a-priori, and, in psychoanalysis's case, some alleged falsification

[red eck]

Just as a clarification, the extract was from the letter's section and not a feature spread out elsewhere in the newspaper, so it's not entirely correct to say the 'news' is attacking CBT. I would gather that CBT came out better.

Still, Pyschoanalysis lingers. Notice the appeal to classism: "what is going to be on offer is a second-class therapy for citizens deemed to be second class".

If you've got lots of money and know what's good for you, you'd better get laid down on that couch!

[Raúl Duke]

Ah, thanks for clarification.

What's ironic is that the "1st class citizens" are going to get the "shitty" version of psychotherapy while the so called "2nd class citizens" are getting a much more effective (and also cost effective...) therapy.

[The Feral Underclass]

what is a cumbersnatch?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

TAT, check out the very first post on this thread.