Views on Freud: Civilization and its Discontents Chapter 1 Part 5

Freud – “A further incentive to a disengagement of the ego from the general mass of sensation – that is, to the recognition of an ‘outside’, an external world – is provided by the frequent, manifold and unavoidable sensations of pain and pleasure principle, in the exercise of its unrestrictive domination.”

Freud does not explain why we separate our ego from the external world.

That is because in our subconscious we are aware of the meaning of pain. Pain itself is a good thing, without it our body would disintegrate without our knowing why. Pain is a feedback system which alerts us of harmful occurrences in our body’s, and since these occurrences happen at the same time as the sensations of pain we associate the pain with something harmful.

 “A tendency arises to separate from the ego everything that can become a source of such unpleasure, to throw it outside and to create a pure pleasure-ego…”

Again, pain is the representative of a situation which hurts our existence, our ability to be, and since our objective is to sustain the status quo of our existence we must rid of such experiences.

“The boundaries of this primitive pleasure-ego cannot escape rectification through experience.”

Based on what can he prove his claims? What about masochists? There association to pain through experience is different and therefore there pain-ego relationship is different.

“Some of the things that one is unwilling to give up, because they give pleasure are nevertheless not ego but object; and some sufferings that one seeks to expel turn out to be inseparable from the ego in virtue of their internal origin.”

The first part can be explained as all experiences; we cling to that we are aware that provides a better existence, the second part is a bit more complex yet beautiful in structure; during our experiences we might learn of a situation which will cause us pain yet on a different level will cause us pleasure. This internal paradox is the source of the ego’s pain.

“One comes to learn a procedure by which, through a deliberate direction of one’s sensory activities and through suitable muscular action, one can differentiate between what is internal- what belongs to the ego – and what is external – what emanates from the outer world.”

There doesn’t have to be necessarily a body to part of the ego, the ego rather compromises of all objects and ideas controlled by the ego. So essentially, the movement of the muscles or ability to sense is a proof or rather a reflection of the ego’s control.

“In this way one makes the first step towards the introduction of the reality principle which is to dominate future development” – Or simply the egos awareness of its scope of power.

Views on Freud: Civilization and Its Discontents Chapter 1 Part 4

Freud – “Further reflection tells us that the adult’s ego-feeling cannot have been the same from the beginning. It must have gone through a process of development, which cannot, of course, be demonstrated but which admits of being constructed with a fair degree of probability. An infant at the breast does not as yet distinguish his ego from the external world as the source of sensation flowing in upon him.”

What? How is he supposed to distinguish anything at all?

In order to distinguish anything from anything there first needs to be experience so how could he be able to distinguish?
“He gradually learns to do so, in response to various promptings.”

Oh, ohhhh so he can distinguish. Wait, when? Oh, when he has something to distinguish with and from, huh, how odd, because if that is the case, why assume he can distinguish without these “various promptings” in the first place?

“He must feel strongly impressed by the fact that some sources of excitation, which he will later recognize as his own bodily organs, can provide him with sensations at any moment, whereas other sources evade him from time to time – among them what he desires most of all, his mother’s breast – and only reappear as a result of his screaming for help.”

An infant who lacks all experience will be surprised by all sensations and stimulations since they are all foreign to him. “Impressed” is the wrong word since it requires the experience of comparisons of certain constants across many different experiences, the underestimation of a certain experience which is based on the same type of experiences, and the polarization of that instant.

And why does he desire his mother’s breast? Why does he care? His internal, yet undefined, need yearns in order for the baby to continue its existence.

“In this way there is for the first time set over against the ego an ‘object’, in the form of something which exists ‘outside’ and which is only forced to appear by special action.”

The ego has hardly been established, there is no acknowledgement of anything at all, because, again, in order for there to be awareness there needs to be a certain amount of experience something to “ignite” the already known facts.

The whole “outside” VS “inside” thing is irrelevant. The only thing relevant is our need to survive, and the most efficient way of doing so, which always boils down to control. Control over our body over objects over ideas. All those which we learn during infancy from our environment that seem to us that they enable control, we will follow as adults who need to survive on their own. If 300 years ago it was physical strength in order to work the fields, today it is mental strength in order to find lucrative jobs which inexplicitly seem to make us think will cause us happiness.

Views on Freud: Civilization and its Discontents Chapter 1 part 3

Ok, I took a break now I am back on track.
In My last post, I discussed Freud’s opinions on the ‘oceanic’ feeling that causes people to believe in god, and my opinions on the subject.
Freud writes “I have nothing to suggest which could have a decisive influence on the solution of this problem.”
“this Idea of men’s receiving an intimation of their connection with the world around them through an immediate feeling which is from the outset directed to that purpose sounds so strange and fits in so badly with the fabric of our psychology that one is justified in attempting to discover a psycho-analytic, that is, a genetic explanation of such a feeling.”
With those few lines Freud refutes any idea of such a feeling as part of the human experience. Basically what he is saying is that a blind person would be able to say the same thing regarding our ability to see. Our experiences cannot be measured or proven. Our only ability to know that they exist is by – experience.

The first question that comes to mind is ‘why’.
Why does it sound so strange?
Why does it fit so badly with the fabric of our psychology?
He goes on “Normally, there is nothing of which we are more certain than the feeling of our self, of our own ego.”
Normally? NORMALLY???? How can normality take any part in this idea at all?
In order for us to try to comprehend the human experience we cannot view it in the eyes of the common man!
In order to create a framework, there must be consistency amongst all ideas of thought, not only those which suite our idea and argument!
He goes on to explain that the ego is not a single entity but there is something behind it the ‘id’, though externally it seems that this ego decouples itself from other entities. Except for one situation – “Against all his senses, a man who is in love declares that ‘I’ and ‘you’ are one, and is prepared to behave as if it were a fact.”
In this case I must agree to a certain degree, though I wouldn’t look at it as a problem but rather a superior state of mind; a moment where thought replaces the human and physical notions of our physical needs and essentially – when we are talking about the love of a man and a woman (or what ever to sexes you feel like filling in) – the human experience not only becomes one but replaces each other creating an entity which is similar to a double helix.