Emotions
Alice Miller (1980/83), the Germanpsychoanalyst, etc. wrote on ‘roots of violence:’“Theparents, faultless while they were alive, are automatically promoted to angelsupon their death, leaving a hell of self-reproach as a legacy to theirchildren. Since it is unlikely that anyone these children knew willconfirm their earlier negative impressions of their parents, they must keepthem to themselves and think themselves very wicked for having them. It wouldhave been no different for the thirteen-year-old Hitler when he lost hisfather. (-) Who would have acknowledged to the boy his fathers (or hismother’s/FK) cruelty and brutality then, if even today biographers stillattempt to describe those regular beatings as (..well-meant). Since Klara, hismother extended her reverence for her husband even after his deathto her pipes, we can scarcely imagine that her son would have been allowed toconfide his true feelings to her” (or later anyone else/FK). Dump the prideand gain the ‘self-confidence’ from kindergarten, accept humiliations,necessary self-control and ‘hate of superego’ (guilt), reality fromthen coming back!
We can thus distinguish 23/2 expected typesof figurations: s(traight), g+l, and t+b and: ‘outsiders’ Thesemarkers we all distinguish are ambivalent, can change around (if at will), bemulti-poled or feigned. They are not ‘groups’ with ‘rights’ to be allocated toas such, because they are not static, sometimes malleable and always part of agame. The ‘dialectics’ of Hegel, Heidegger and Merton (1949-68) are reinventedfrom within ourselves, and typical of all human choices. All mammals noticeextremes better. We all had to make choices, always a gamble, including ouroedipal ones: There are 3 digital (1/0) and there is only one analogdimension(s) to ‘figurations:’ Pride, vanity and ambivalence, which are thesame.
Observe that: The ‘g+l’ or gay and lesbian-identified persons and ‘groups’ are more ambivalent and more hierarchical than their ‘straight’ counterparts, despite their ‘humour’ and railing over what they ‘love’ and that they dominate media ‘narrative,’ with first names use,wigs, and constant pouting (with teeth), as-if all contestants and their‘public’ were all siblings.
All relation-types usually ‘espouse’ an active and apassive partner. ‘G + L’s’ are feared and resented as ‘liberated,’ mostly fortheir seeming promiscuity and ‘happiness.’ (Horney K (1951) The ‘wow and X-factor:’huge, strong, delightful, is the same. Women are more competitive, think theyare ‘worse off.’ The 2nd and 3rd worlds have more ‘L+G’combos and singles than the 1st, even if suppressed by Judiciary,police, (church) and mosque. All we see is what it looks like; The ‘L+G-‘combo’s were there before the ‘straight’ duos. ’Straight’ evolved to be lesshierarchical. ‘L+G’s’ then, are the immanent upcoming heterosexuals of theirfuture, that needs not be in ‘the west.’ ‘West-’ or ‘north-people’ will notinsure ‘L+G’s’ from ‘south’ or ‘east,’ and that would not do them any good. This‘helping’ with such ‘good’ intentions has caused many wars in the past. All‘we’ can do is help ‘them’ with more commerce over there and more tolerance.They will have to ‘fight-out’ their ambivalence and repress it with their‘civilization,’ as ‘we’ did. This applies increasingly to women in general, 2ndand3rdworld people and the other mammals. Hierarchy, or ‘de-
votion,’ which is diminishing fast, is what all long for, ‘romance,’ call it ‘love.’
We may conclude that the ‘g+l’ combo’s and groups werethere first, as ongoing love/hate fights, from which the now prevalent, lessambivalent, hierarchical and sadomasochist relations evolved. Consequently the‘l+g’ combos are both more prevalent and more subdued than in ‘the west.’ Thelimit-less urge to be ‘respected,’ is a post-poned oedipal choice,’ westernerscannot resolve. They ‘want’ more, or think they ‘deserve’ even more, than ‘us’rich, zealous ‘westerners.’ Dichotomies?Interesting! Love, destiny, envy!
Do we ever grow up? Who is ‘responsible?’ Lies, Lies, and it’s no-one in particular. In a ‘democracy,’ ‘bosses’ of utilities, can deny their clientsservices they’ve already paid taxes for, or admit others to compete for‘free.’ That power has its limits, where the ‘bosses’ are always part of a sortof a ‘court’ of assumed bosses and/or their spouses, like party-members whoobtained a civil position in the past, whose parties may have lost their mandate,i.e. in a municipal board. In the end, it will only be those in a ‘court ofmilitary power,’ a medical function, in schools, providers of shelter or police,who can threaten or extort the taxed to let them ‘do’ more, as we know fromElias introduction (1969): ‘State-formation.’ Are appointed ‘bosses’ in their‘courts’ ‘grown-up?’ Not if they ‘believe.’ With J O y Gasset (1922),‘theatre,’ movies and stories are only accepted as such when written from arecognised oedipal toddler scope, of which there are only 4, if dominant/activevs. deferent/passive is not counted as a ‘typical relation,’ because it alwaysis, or male/female, which is a static given, not a choice, even if it isoften considered so and ‘played-out.’. In Church only 2 are allowed andrespected (‘holy trinity,’incl. ‘the Soul.’), or we wouldn’t know what toexpect in our agreed ‘belief’ or social rules. We call ‘scientific,’ objective,or ‘nonfiction’ only so if they are made by one of them, lesbian or gay, i.e,one of the regular ‘outsiders.’ They are less than 1/5th of all,but ‘growing,’ if taken very broadly and include the ‘manifest,’ who don’tqualify when their wish is ‘only just’ a ‘figurated’ family. At puberty thereis no such ‘choice’ anymore, except after painstaking analysis, with nosuccess or definitive ‘choice’ guaranteed and much insecurity of ‘identity.’Judging from our youths dressing-habits, nowadays, with lots of color,accessories, torn (off) trousers and strange haircuts.The availability-signalsand ‘markers’ still stay the same all over the world. Youngsters are more freeto express and ‘play on’ sexual orientations.
The question: What’s in a name? gives: Claimants oedipal appearances as kings, queensor ‘good’ beggars; which it’s all about in these games of attainment, where ambivalencereigns. State, Church and Islam, are long-term solutions for our castration-complexes.Me too! Men incorporated their mothers complexes in their super-egos by herdisciplining education.
So what is what we call ‘woke’ about? Itmust be the diminishing influence of who or what is supposedly vulnerable orvictim, like LGBT’s, sick people, blacks, ‘nature,’ or ‘the system,’ ‘wanting’to be ‘inclusive’ of the vulnerable nobody is. It presumes a hierarchy andimperative language.