Psychoanalysis with Dialectics

[Wolfgang Absolutus]

So People became separated in their minds for whatever reason, I'm not some kind of biologist, into the Super Ego and Id. In a Dialectical type fashion The Super Ego confronted the animalistic Id and created the Ego, the self. We are self conscious because of the way the Super Ego and Id brush up against each other. This clash is the source of guilt and other emotions only humans have.
The State is a psychic projection of this internal state of affairs where the Super Ego, exemplified in The Machine^TM brushes up against our base internal desires, the Id, and turns us into citizens.
The movements of the 60s with sexual revolution and whatever else are then superficial because they merely furthered the clash between the Id and the Super Ego with them on one side and the government on the other. All it did was make us (here I can nly speak for America) more egotistical and guilty. More repressed as citizens. (This can also be linked to the concept of recuperation of the situationists where any radical tendencies are defanged and then put to service by The Machine^TM, which might make it only seem like the sexual revolution movement was superficial. )
So then this seems to jam with the Buddhist notion of Ego Death and being Mu. At this point since I am not that well versed in Buddhism I am kind of lost.
I am also then a bit disconcerted with the way this argument goes due to the eternal nature of the Chao. If we are pretty much incapable of seeing Chaos for what it is and instead we must be satisfied with whirling arrays of order and disorder, does that mean that we are stuck with this repugnant Super Ego and with it The Machine^TM itself?
It could be possible that while the Super Ego and it's notions of order are impossible to escape, we can shift the relationship between the Super Ego and Id such that our Ego lives much more at ease. At which point then the anarchist project becomes feasible as it changes the organization of people and the balance between order and disorder by removing the State Capitalist machine and replacing it with an array of other more local rule making bodies. Of course then that might imply that the Buddhist notion of being Mu is unattainable, though it still leaves the process of Zen up for use to balance out the forces of order and disorder in our minds. 
This is just a different way of understanding the forces of Order and Disorder, though I've been reading alot of the Illuminatus! books lately soit could just be a regurgitation of that. In any case, what do you think about this?

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?

[Doktor Howl]

I'm not some kind of biologist, into the Super Ego and Id.

Um...

That just made my fucking day.  Thanks!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

 

I think that Id, Ego and Superego were simply words used to describe observed processes that were not well-understood (and continue to be not well-understood today). We use different words for them now that are more sciency, like amygdala and cerebral cortex and corpus colossum and Broca's Region and so on, and we know that ACTUAL STUFF HAPPENS and that the brain is really complicated and systems are very intertwined, but we still don't really understand it.

[P3nT4gR4m]

I think that Id, Ego and Superego were simply words used to describe observed processes that were not well-understood (and continue to be not well-understood today). We use different words for them now that are more sciency, like amygdala and cerebral cortex and corpus colossum and Broca's Region and so on, and we know that ACTUAL STUFF HAPPENS and that the brain is really complicated and systems are very intertwined, but we still don't really understand it.

Please forgive my not knowing that, I'm not some kind of Civil Engineer, into amygdalas and cerebral cortex's you know

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

 

[Doktor Howl]

I think that Id, Ego and Superego were simply words used to describe observed processes that were not well-understood (and continue to be not well-understood today). We use different words for them now that are more sciency, like amygdala and cerebral cortex and corpus colossum and Broca's Region and so on, and we know that ACTUAL STUFF HAPPENS and that the brain is really complicated and systems are very intertwined, but we still don't really understand it.

Please forgive my not knowing that, I'm not some kind of Civil Engineer, into amygdalas and cerebral cortex's you know

"I'm not going to bullshit you; I'm not a DOCTOR, I'm not some kind of MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL...I'm a PROFESSOR, and this is what I'm professing."
- Professor Cramulus, Diabetics Are Awful People.

[Wolfgang Absolutus]

Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?

If we have to choose a narrative then it makes sense to me to just use whatever one is useful in describing the terms. Talking about the civil rights movement in terms ofthe swirling of atoms doesn't seem to be particularly useful in communicating an idea.

I'm not some kind of biologist, into the Super Ego and Id.

Um...

That just made my fucking day.  Thanks!

What I really meant is that I don't know of a biological or evolutionary reason for the human mind to be separated in such a fashion, merely that it seems to be that way. Certainly I don't think that the Ego and Id are actual biological parts of the brain, only that they are easier to talk about than the different physical structures in the brain, especially since the interaction between government and citizens seems to be a psychic process rather than a physical one.

[The Johnny]

im curious, have you actually read anything of psychoanalysis beyond some wikipedia article?

i personally think your analogies and comparisons are weak and superficial, do you have it in you to make something more elaborate?

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?

If we have to choose a narrative then it makes sense to me to just use whatever one is useful in describing the terms. Talking about the civil rights movement in terms ofthe swirling of atoms doesn't seem to be particularly useful in communicating an idea.

There are more useful ones than Id Ego and Superego. Like, about a billion times more useful for any of my purposes. If you like that one, that's fine for you, but I kinda hate it with several passions and I find a lot of times when people are going down that path it's because they haven't explored the idea that this is just one of many grids, and it may not automatically be the best.

[The Johnny]

Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?

If we have to choose a narrative then it makes sense to me to just use whatever one is useful in describing the terms. Talking about the civil rights movement in terms ofthe swirling of atoms doesn't seem to be particularly useful in communicating an idea.

There are more useful ones than Id Ego and Superego. Like, about a billion times more useful for any of my purposes. If you like that one, that's fine for you, but I kinda hate it with several passions and I find a lot of times when people are going down that path it's because they haven't explored the idea that this is just one of many grids, and it may not automatically be the best.

Theres this whole field in psychology that is denominated "groups and institutions" with its own theory and practice, and then there's also "psychoanalysis of institutions"... i mean, im trying to not be rude, but to me it just sounded like psych 101 fappery

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Honestly, my kneejerk reaction is that the Id Ego and SuperEgo are just another type of narrative to describe the internal processes of thought and identity, and do you really want your narrative of self being influenced by Freud?

If we have to choose a narrative then it makes sense to me to just use whatever one is useful in describing the terms. Talking about the civil rights movement in terms ofthe swirling of atoms doesn't seem to be particularly useful in communicating an idea.

There are more useful ones than Id Ego and Superego. Like, about a billion times more useful for any of my purposes. If you like that one, that's fine for you, but I kinda hate it with several passions and I find a lot of times when people are going down that path it's because they haven't explored the idea that this is just one of many grids, and it may not automatically be the best.

Theres this whole field in psychology that is denominated "groups and institutions" with its own theory and practice, and then there's also "psychoanalysis of institutions"... i mean, im trying to not be rude, but to me it just sounded like psych 101 fappery

Yeah, they taught us id, ego, and superego basically as part of a history lesson. "Hey guys, it's important to understand the history of psychology. OK, now you know. Let us never speak of this again".

[The Johnny]

psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"

also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...

the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting

[Wolfgang Absolutus]

psychoanalysis is a very specialized and technical language, so one either goes balls out and develops the idea THROUGHLY with it or one simply does not use it, any middle ground i consider it as "omg, my psychobabble sounds so interesting"

also, applying the terminology which was designed as a map to the territory og the mind, and transitioning as using it as a map of the territory of society is at best sketchy...

the more i think of it the more ragefrotthy im getting

Well abandoning the psychoanalysis language I would still like to talk about what kind of options are available for those dissatisfied with the status quo, if the institutions which they seek to oppose, such as the state, are just projections of their minds. My main point of ambivalence here being whether collective or individual action would then be more effective. I've thought myself that a combination of the two would be the most pragmatic approach as it cuts off both the physical and psychic manifestations of the state. Then again physical and psychic approaches are both prone to ideology and co option. Or could it be alternatively that The Machine^TM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires and as such the path of anarchism is at best naive if it thinks it can destroy coercive law-making bodies in a real capacity. If we cannot rid ourselves of the insecurities and guilt that make us want to form and strengthen governments then governments will always exist by this logic.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Implying governments are an undesirable outcome.