Dichotomies and polarization
We always seem to look for causes of anyharm or glory (to or of bubbles) in the form of supposed ‘groups’ or ‘communities’and split into ‘badies’ and ‘goodies’ and I guess all of us suffer theirsuper-ego hatred of their toddler and oedipal punishments ‘away,’ denying themand glorifying them, rightly or wrongly. They represent kidtime-defeats, as pride does in general.
Most of us repress or idealize thesechildish memories this way or love to just laugh them off as fun or triumph.And as one can believe in a nation, some science or religion, one will haveto confirm these bubble ‘beliefs’ sui generis, as bastardizedprojections and identifications in bubbles, not to be ‘abhorred’ in moraloutrage, by the same common mechanisms anymore, as they also serve competingevolutionary ‘purposes.’ These ‘beliefs’ are ‘reaction formations’ and stemfrom our own kindergarten-time or earlier, and they are not easily left behindand kept as obsessions to adhere to loyally, representingold failures, defeats and mortifications, identified with and transposed tothe ‘prides’ that form our present-day bubbles, ‘selves’ and, ‘identities’inagreed ‘groups’ whether from ‘religious,’ ‘ideological’ education,fairy-tales we were told, mirroring the oedipal choices of times long ago.Must I repeat this again? This applies extra in minority-circumstances ofpeople that have been cancelled before as a ‘figuration.’ From the West, South or East, whose obsessive ‘failures’ of old arestronger, especially if parental surveyance or education was less, but more severe.There is a time-lag, as growing up with less parenting traumatizes more andleaves stronger identifications (with whoever was ‘lost’), obsessive feelings ofpride ‘self’ and ‘ego.’ The ‘historical approach’ is not enough; Comparisonswill always have to be made with analysis of our own personal history, i.e:our filogenesis, down to pre-decessors oedipal phases, where ‘mine’ will be a historyof a ‘figuration,’ and the personally felt ones of individuals as memories oftheir first ‘figurations:’ their ‘families,’ become the wished models ofrespect.
It may seem a bold conclusion, but withreading the Freuds observations in the Addenda, itwill be less so. The mechanisms are known by our youths by now, except maybethose of battered or just neglected minorities, (old) leaders, ‘teachers,’ or‘mothers,’ that don’t take no for an answer and who were also excluded frommodern peer education. Allow more personal history and less rules to complywith in humanity-papers, with more sympathy for writers toddler-memoriesand of solving of our mystery-conflicts. That requires determination, fuzzylogic, honesty, courage and mourning.When looking for freedom, inspiration, our‘soul,’ humor, liberation, nostalgia, psychology, theology, pathology,esotery, religion, the occult, sociology, anthropology, spirituality, love,togetherness, warmth, dreams, fun and games, glory, morality, romance, prideand even for a new ‘strategy,’ change, heaven, enlightenment and respect, weare usually only after our own identifications of our own oedipal figurationas would-be ‘collective’ childhoods, because we ‘love’ and want them. To bereminded, zap from Comedy Central to Disney for a while and observe the‘comedy,’ cartoons, drama, horror and sci-fi. Look at your e-mails, sms,twitters and ‘apps,’ with gutturals: ha-has, a-ahs, aus, hee-hees, screams,wows, aarghs, khs. tschs, eeks, (o)ohs and ahs, thumping or patting each-otherwith ‘looks,’grins, etc; and hoarseness, distorted voices, like musicalinstruments, toddlers, neanderthals, and chimps. We often, refer to each-othernow ‘informally,’ a distinction phased out of the English language and anyslang. On ‘the continent,’ we said ‘thou’ to each-other in any meeting, butit’s fading there too. This probably means that we are getting more consciousof these internalized, wished relations, our intuition/ambition, and arecontrolling them better as a result, with a guilty ‘feeling’ of loss or‘shame.’ ‘Wer die Sehnsucht (longing, yearning) kennt, weiss (knows,knows) was ich leide,’ (suffer) said J von Goethe (1821). We address each-other increasingly again as-if we were brothers andsisters, whatever we suffered as toddlers, as usualin clubs, sports, parties, Church, rural places and small business, wherehierarchy thrives. This was not so before the war, when a lot more ‘slang’ (femininestreet-talk) was spoken, also by men, to be considered one of ‘us’ and ‘honestly’ notlied to (mercifully), as ‘family,’ while jesting and teasing went on normally.
We need to feel our bubbly identifications , pay for it and you are presumably considered exclusive, special andthus ‘loved.’ And that’s a lie too.
The dichotomies we love so much, we still handle them subconsciously, but they shouldnot be ignored or rejected for they are reflections of past choices, notvoluntarily made, though we still wish for them. We expect and accept to be‘medicalized’ (with psychiatry), when only anxious or ‘unloved.’ We know from marketing and clinical psychology research, thatdecisions are usually already made when we find rationalizations for them.They are ‘figurational memories’ we cling to as-if they were ‘our’ homes,towns and families, where we revisit and wonder whether we belong there andif it all (still) belongs to us. If we’ admit it proudly, or not (shamefully),‘we,’ (mankind at least and not just me) ‘need’ to ‘belong’ to a named ‘world,’if only at least a wished and ‘figurated’ one. With Anna Freud (1932) wecannot deny any longer that sexual life begins long before puberty, whichmakes the organization we want re-identification or re-introjection with/inrecognizable ‘bubbles’, passively or actively, positively or negatively by thepleasure-principle and whichever gave most e(pre-) oedipally, then. Confirmthis from experience with ‘national-socialism,’ when Germans felt robbedbetween the wars (with ‘Versailles’). We feel securer now than ever, so oureducators can afford the passive introjection, at others expense, which we‘love.’