Freud was an interesting dude was some pretty original ideas. he was undoubtedly a pioneer in field of psychology and in the exploration of the mind. His main thing was that he believed that there is a distinct seperation between that of our concious mind - the one that we make everyday simple desicions with, the one in which we have all our internal dialogue, yada yada yada.. and the unconcious mind - a completely different area of the brain which all of our 'repressed feelings' of desire, fear, and memories we choose to block out, all reside. that must be one crazy little place. We never actually enter our unconcious mind according to Freud.. rather it comes out on its own in subleties that have been overlooked or undiscovered in all the years since Freud.
One of the best ways to analyze whats going on in that crazy unconcious mind of your is to take a hard look at your dreams and open yourself up to interpretation. Freud would interpret dreams of his patients.. and make claims that would shock the hell out of them. One patient that Barry discusses in particular is that of Dora. She was an eighteen year old girl who had threatened to kill herself, and claim that she had been sexually abused by her fathers friend. Through a bizzare interpretation of dream she had in which her father helped save her from a fire, Freud made the claim that the fire was her burning lust for her father (Oedipus Complex) in which she is resentful that it isnt returned... and through a couple other associations that arnt even related to the dream.. Dora actually desired the man she claimed was abusing her.
This case was highly publicized and critiqued .. and needless to say did not help Freud popularity. To this day his thoughts and ideas are heavily challenged... especailly by Feminist Critics.
Okay Freud, you were brave and daring... kodus... you made great advances in the field of psychology and provoked some really interesting thought your theory.. but you should have taken it a little easy on the little cocaine expierment.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Wednesday, February 21, 2007
Derrida
Derrida claims that there is nothing outside a text, and that reality as we know it is a construction, and therefore reality is a type of text. Ever structure or construction must of a center according to Derrida. Within this structure ther must be a center which I think must be undisrupted to begin with. When the center is disrupted, it is called Derrida calls this a rupture. What ruptures a structure? Is it play? What exactly is play. I know it is defined as the disruption of presence. So are rupture and play linked because center and presence are linked? Sorry if I'm confusing you.
Going back to the center, aka the source of truth within a structure. It has been understood that for the center to be "present" it resides in the middle. If the center is absent (not-present) it resides on the outside. Only when the center is fully present can the structure be condsidered stable or fixed. Derrida attacks the entire idea of Knowledge as presence.
Another concept i am begining to grasp is that of Nature Vs. Culture. Nature has been around forever. Culture is secondary to nature because it is in away a product of it. Human nature is what leads to the development of cultures. Things that are natural, can be found throughout the entire natural world, and are unaffected by culture. Aspects of life that are exclusive to a certian region or a certian people is a part of the cultural world. An example of something that is a part of both the cultural and natural world is the incest taboo. Incest is denounced and looked down upon on in all cultures. It is a natural law not to sleep with your family members. Therefore the law is satisfied in both the natural and cultural world
Tuesdays class helped clear a couple things up for me. I found it to be one of the more "helpfull" classes thus far. Dr. McGuire did more lecturing than usual, and i know that this is a seminar and all but sometimes lectures can do wonders if done at approipiate times. I think Derrida qualifies.
Going back to the center, aka the source of truth within a structure. It has been understood that for the center to be "present" it resides in the middle. If the center is absent (not-present) it resides on the outside. Only when the center is fully present can the structure be condsidered stable or fixed. Derrida attacks the entire idea of Knowledge as presence.
Another concept i am begining to grasp is that of Nature Vs. Culture. Nature has been around forever. Culture is secondary to nature because it is in away a product of it. Human nature is what leads to the development of cultures. Things that are natural, can be found throughout the entire natural world, and are unaffected by culture. Aspects of life that are exclusive to a certian region or a certian people is a part of the cultural world. An example of something that is a part of both the cultural and natural world is the incest taboo. Incest is denounced and looked down upon on in all cultures. It is a natural law not to sleep with your family members. Therefore the law is satisfied in both the natural and cultural world
Tuesdays class helped clear a couple things up for me. I found it to be one of the more "helpfull" classes thus far. Dr. McGuire did more lecturing than usual, and i know that this is a seminar and all but sometimes lectures can do wonders if done at approipiate times. I think Derrida qualifies.
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Post/ Structuralism
Post-Structuralism came about after Structuralism
and in my opinion fixed what was wrong with Strucuralism.
Both theories concentrate on binary pairs, especially when dealing
with the concept of words. Structuralism is more concerned with the
parallels that are found in language, more specifically words in general.
Post-Structuralism works off this idea of binary pairs, but is more concerned
with the contradictions that are found in language and more specifically
words. One way of thinking about this is that words contaiminate eachother.
This idea of contamination differs from Structuralist concept that suggests
that our reality is constructed through language. The similarity is that
both consider language as a system. Post-Structuralism is concerned
more with the "centers" of systems. I dont completely understand
the idea of the "center". One thing we touched on in class was
the idea that man is the center of knowledge, but does that
mean that man is the center of language? How do
Structuralists feel about this? Do they Acknowledge
man as the center of knowledge and language??
and in my opinion fixed what was wrong with Strucuralism.
Both theories concentrate on binary pairs, especially when dealing
with the concept of words. Structuralism is more concerned with the
parallels that are found in language, more specifically words in general.
Post-Structuralism works off this idea of binary pairs, but is more concerned
with the contradictions that are found in language and more specifically
words. One way of thinking about this is that words contaiminate eachother.
This idea of contamination differs from Structuralist concept that suggests
that our reality is constructed through language. The similarity is that
both consider language as a system. Post-Structuralism is concerned
more with the "centers" of systems. I dont completely understand
the idea of the "center". One thing we touched on in class was
the idea that man is the center of knowledge, but does that
mean that man is the center of language? How do
Structuralists feel about this? Do they Acknowledge
man as the center of knowledge and language??
Wednesday, February 7, 2007
Construct it
Structuralism seems to have many concepts and ideas working within it. To say i understand them all, or even some, would be a complete lie. To be honest i will probably walk in to tomorrows class with one or two basic concepts of structuralism, and hear about a billion more ideas thrown around the room by you all and by Dr. M. The trend is i will walk out with one or two more ideas. I guess the idea of this class is to piece this and that together and figure it out for your own. the thing that i dont particularly like is that each form of theory is so dense, and every week we are reading something new, and to be honest it confuses me very much so. I just delated an entire blog that i wrote because i thought i was writing it all Structuralism and it turned out that the main thesis of blof was Liberal Humanist-based. that scares me.
Anyway, now that I'm on the right theory (hopefully) lets talk a little about the "hut" idea. i seemed to have grasped that for the most part. Basicaly words are to be seen as a relation. This means that words do not mean anything without it having a relation to another word. Barry used the hut example with "shed-hut-house-mansion etc"). Suposedly this works when working with opposites. such as how the word "male" is a direct relation to "female" which is the opposite of male. Without the idea that words work as relation to eachother... words would be merely arbritary. Right? So by that standard.. words have no concrete meaning... that language has no fixed meaning.
Anyway, now that I'm on the right theory (hopefully) lets talk a little about the "hut" idea. i seemed to have grasped that for the most part. Basicaly words are to be seen as a relation. This means that words do not mean anything without it having a relation to another word. Barry used the hut example with "shed-hut-house-mansion etc"). Suposedly this works when working with opposites. such as how the word "male" is a direct relation to "female" which is the opposite of male. Without the idea that words work as relation to eachother... words would be merely arbritary. Right? So by that standard.. words have no concrete meaning... that language has no fixed meaning.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)