Misreading Freud and Lacan

freud

Lacan

I have read vastly into Freud and Lacan who are all time popular psycho-analysts and whose theories are popular as jargon in the field of literary theory. It was when I started reading the Bible, I began to have second thoughts about them and I wanted reinterpret their theories with the light of Christian Apologetics.

First of all I would like to take the Freudian concepts of the ID, EGO and SUPEREGO. The ID according to Freud is the primary seat of passion and the stronghold of the libido. The EGO refers to the culture and language assimilated from the family. The SUPEREGO refers to the laws imposed by the society. What Freud has failed, is his efforts to integrate these concepts. It’s still a mystery to this day about how language is learnt by humans. The theories of language are rather vague and hazy. From a Freudian point of view we have to be an acrobat and tight-rope-walk on the ID, EGO and SUPEREEGO. Any loss of balance would be insanity and thus we have psychopaths and sociopaths who are not able to adjust these three states. From a Christian perspective, Christ made creation as a wholesome being. When sin entered the world through Adam and Eve our psychological states became fragmented. After the entry of Christ and his shedding of blood on the cross and his offering of salvation, we are made whole beings once again. Such a type of consciousness, I would like to define as a neologism: CHRISTANONSCIOUSNESS or Christ plus consciousness. The Freudian fragmentation of consciousness is considerably reduced and we become parts of Christ as his brides.

Next I would like to take the Freudian concept of the Libido. Libido for Freud is the sexual drive. Here Freud fails to consider that we are humans and not animals. Incest is rare in society. Again Freud has misinterpreted the Libido to arise from birth. The libido begins only at the state of puberty. Parental relationship like, touch, sharing of emotions and care develops not the sexual organs but the mind. Freud was madly focused on the genitals which I think has been a red-herring. Love, emotions and care, I would like to say are responsible for the growth of psycho-emotivity of the person. A bad childhood can create psychological problems later on. Lack of development of psycho-emotivity can make individuals into psychos and sociopaths. It’s very interesting to observe how Christ treated mentally deranged people. He treated them with love, empathy and respect and healed their afflictions totally. Notable is the man from Gadarene. Cure for Christ was not altering the function of neuro-transmitters but wholesome.

Next I would like to raise all hue and cry against the preposterous theory of Freud called the Oedipus complex. It’s ironic to note that Freud made it from Legend. According to the legend, the play of Sophocles, Rex the king marries his mother and kills the father. For Freud the Oedipus complex meant the transference of the child from the breast of the mother to desire the father. I would blatantly ask Freud whether any child in the world will have sexual desires for the mother at such an early phase of development. We are not born into sex and sex develops later on in life. At this stage of life we are in a process known as Christomasy, a word coined from Christ and Geomancy (reading the earth through divination). Development at this phase of life is emotional and psychological rather than sexual. I would also like to use another term for the process of weaning and that would be the circumcision complex. The circumcision complex refers to the weaning of the child from the mother. And the child after weaning has to come to terms with the partial independence of the body.

Next I would like to deal with Freud’s most baffling theory—the castration complex. Castration complex closely related to the Oedipus complex is the reaction of threats put by the father to taboo the sexual activities of the child. The child comes to confront the laws of the society—that is prohibition against incest and murder. Its true when sexual feelings are opened at puberty, there might be a tendency to masturbate. It’s a part of nature after the Adamite sin. Here the parents can guide the activities of the child to recreational pursuits. Again Freudian sexuality is chauvinistic. It does not address the nature of feminine sexuality. Freud does not say that the female child desires the father and wishes to kill the mother.

Next I would like to take up the Freudian conceptuality of the Oral Anal and Phallic Phases. The Oral phase is marked by desire of the Mother’s breast and pleasure in oral simulation. Does the child connote it sexually? The answer is definitely no. The next Freudian phase is the Anal when there is a fascination for defecation. Shitting is more biological than sexual. I would beg to disagree with Freud by saying that sodomy is not learnt at this stage. I am sure that the child will not have fantasy for sodomy. The next stage is the phallic. Here the phallus for the child is more a biological tool rather than a sexual one. The genitals attain a connotation of sexuality only at a later stage of development that is puberty.

Next I would like to take Lacan’s concept of the gaze. For Lacan the gaze is sexual also termed by him as scopophilia or the pleasure of looking. Again I take this to be very chauvinistic. I would like to ask the question why males are fond of looking. The feminine on the other hand is stimulated by love, touch and care. I would like to call this as maternality. The Bible is very clear about the gaze. Christ has repeatedly emphasized that it is not enough that you don’t do adultery but lust not with your eyes. If your eyes are cloudy pluck them out. In reality this Christian ideal is very difficult to put into practice. What we can do only is to ask God for forgiveness.

Next of all Lacan’s controversial concepts is the Mirror stage. It is the stage that occurs from 6 to 18 months when the child learns to recognize the self as an image. This is an atrocious blasphemy. The sense of the self develops through language and cognition. Yes, the emotive concepts of the self have to be guaranteed by the mother with loving gestures, tender care and emotional speech. Only then can the child develop into a wholesome being.

Again Lacan the notorious French psychoanalyst has fragmented the ego into the real, imaginary and the symbolic realms. The real for Lacan is an ideal state of being before the development of language. The self of the child is looked after by the parents. This was originally the state of Adam and Eve in paradise. The next stage is the symbolic order where the child enters into the realm of language. The child’s reality from plenitude is desire and lack. Is that a problem? Not at all! For a child who has been well looked after it is not emotional or sexual problem. Deviancy occurs due to a bad childhood. The next stage is imaginary a stage for the development of narcissism. The person at this stage will have fantasy for herself or himself and also for celebrities. From Christian viewpoint it is better to be rooted in Christ and accept Christ as our ideal. Christ is loving celebrity who has to be coated with worship, honor and respect. After all we are made to do the same. Social, intellectual and physical bonding will help to reduce the self prophesied narcissism of Lacan.

Advertisements

Linguicide

Nietzsche

The Philosopher Nietzsche Killed God. He is right, God was crucified. But he resurrected from the Grave. Linguicide as an idiom refers to Christ resurrecting. Linguicide has made it possible for humanity to be saved. I am happy that I have experienced his love and the realization of his linguicide.

Reading Albert Camus’ Rebel from Christian Apologetics

camus-1-e1494939707186

ravi

(This article is dedicated to the famous and dear Christian Apologist Dr. Ravi Zacharias )

What is a Rebel? Camus contradicts by saying that a rebel is a person who affirms and denies existence. Camus is being vague when he says what is meant to be a rebel? What can we rebel? Why should we rebel? Is it God—the Society—other people?

Again Camus says that rebellion is an assertion of the Ego. Camus forgets that there is the Freudian ID, Ego and Super Ego. ID is the sea of passion what Freud incarnated as the Libido. Ego is the values and culture accumulated from the family and society. Super Ego is the law of the society. I raise my fist at Freud, a left hook for not integrating these states. From Freudian perspective we have to tight-rope-walk on these states to hold it in a balance. Viewed from a Christian perspective we have a consciousness known as CHRISTANONSCIOUNESS in which the balance is kept intact. I would dare to ask Freud the Question did Christ want to separate these states? In Christanonsciousness we are whole beings in Christ.

Camus postulates that man’s solidarity is found in rebellion. What is solidarity? It is the feeling of human oneness and the showing of empathy. How can solidarity be birthed out of rebellion. The Indian freedom struggle birthed out non violence against British imperialism by Mahatma Gandhi was a solidarity revolution. Solidarity bears allegiance to the Christian maxim: Love: your enemy. If your enemy thrashes you on the right cheek, show him also your left one.

Camus reiterates the idea of the Absurd in Rebel. Absurdism derived from nihilism points out that life has no meaning and it is chaotically absurd. Absurdism is self-negating and defeats the very purpose of life. We are living in reality that is being-processed. And that is processual ontology. Processual ontology posits existence to be angstual, cathartic and ecstacyual.
Camus again explains metaphysical rebellion which he defines as a rebellion against God and an utter blasphemy. To be pejoratively speaking, does Camus want whore in front of a Christian altar? From an apologetic viewpoint, Christ as God the Father’s Son came to us as our own being and we did not have to go to him. Man is an emotional being and we simply cannot do away with metaphysics. We can’t calculate the meaning of life in equations. What about the questions of ethics? Ethics and values of the society lie in the metaphysical realm. How can we explain murder, incest, rape and pedophilia? Camus fails to explain how we get our inner-conscience? During the beginning of creation we were made whole and sin has fragmented into the various Freudian psychological states.
Camus is overwhelmingly sympathetic to Sade. Talking from a moral perspective, can Sadism be justified? Is it hunky dory to commit rape, murder, suicide, incest and pedophilia? Even Freud has said that committing these acts won’t lead to the growth of civilization. If we follow Sade’s ingenuous ideas, it will lead to the disintegration of society, and anarchy.

Again Camus goes on to negate Salvation. Sartre the great nihilist and existentialist said that man is condemned to be free. Christ on the other hand said that there is only freedom in me. Both types of freedoms are paradoxical. Christian freedom is a state where your are neither free nor bound. You are in a state of Freeatharsis, coined from freedom and catharsis. Camus philosophy is one of rejectionism. Can an anarchic state where no morals exist be conceived? Is the philosophy each according to his will and each according to his ability be justified? As a Christian apologist, I would like to say we are free to accept Christ and his blood shed on the cross. The human heart has a peculiar ideological symptom and that is the acceptance of Christ. Being in Christ is joy. Death is only physical as far as the body is concerned. The soul and spirit are anchored to Christ. A being’s monumental realization of eternity and eternal life comes with Christ. Let’s look at Christ’s attitude to the prostitute Mary Magdalene. Christ said: ‘sin no more’. ‘Who ever in this crowd has no blemish raise a stone against her’? Christ acted out creative-empathy.
I would like to explain the contours of Camus nihilism. a) It involves the rejection of God and Metaphysics. b) It idealizes anarchy. Being in Christ gives a value, purpose and meaning to life. A Civil society does not exist in anarchy. c) It involves a rebellion with the self. I would like to define the self as an organic—automation, with a free will to choose Christ and be a whole person. The self in this world owing to Adamite sin has to maneuver between ecstasy and angstuality.

Again Camus expostulates Rousseau’s Social Contract. The social contract is a legitimate document for establishing a democratic society. Can the Social Contract be borne out on Nihilism? Why does Camus a self proclaimed Nihilist and Anarchist want to emphasize the Social Contract? Isn’t Camus subversively justifying the need for values in Society? Christian Freedom implies a justice based on responsibility.

I would like to develop an antonym for nihilism and that is purposuality (purpose and reality). A purposist exists in realization of life or in a state of valuableization (valuable and realization). Life is valuablelization derived from value and jubilation.