Psychoanalysis with Dialectics

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

Are you having some sort of episode?

[Salty]

I thought the thing that causes governments to form was the natural development of a highly advanced social primate species.

[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.

Are you having some sort of episode?

I'm confused by what you mean by that.

Implying governments are an undesirable outcome.

I find them to be undesirable if there are better alternatives for living. Though my ambivalence in the last post shows that governments may not be undesirable given certain conditions of humanity.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

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.

Are you having some sort of episode?

I'm confused by what you mean by that.

I mean that you are using a lot of words, but your meaning is not particularly clear, and I'm uncertain of what to make of that.

[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.

Are you having some sort of episode?

I'm confused by what you mean by that.

I mean that you are using a lot of words, but your meaning is not particularly clear, and I'm uncertain of what to make of that.

You're right that I'm a bit scattered. I don't have a particular right answer to the specific question proposed: What can be done by those who are dissatified with the status quo if the government is a projection of our collective heads.

I am unsure of what the answer might be which is where I am asking for some assistance.
If The MachineTM is a mental construction which is eternal and essential to the human mind much like our instinctual desires then we can't ever really get rid of coercive government.
If The MachineTM  is a mental construct which is malleable and able to be surmounted, then the anarchist project can still be fulfilled for those interested in it.
Going further if the anarchist project has potential for balancing out order and disorder in human life, is individual action, like Zazen or something, or Collective action, like public revolution, the more effective path to getting rid of the  construct of coercive state government? I am currently of the opinion that a combination of the two is necessary, but I am open to the ideas of others on this point or any other.
My post being a series of questions might seem a bit dense. I hope that cleared up my meaning a bit. 

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I feel like your understanding of The Machine and my understanding of it aren't on the same wavelength at all. (Not to imply that one is right or the other is wrong, just that we're talking at right angles to each other.)

[Wolfgang Absolutus]

When I say The Machine, I guess my understanding of it is that it is the grouping of the globalized state-capitalist government structure which is centered in the Euro-American World. It is not only the various Statist governments but also the global capitalist economy and the general objectification it propogates. Here I would make a distinction in a similar way Marx and Malcolm X did between House Slaves( the bourgeoisie ) and the field slaves (the global proletariet whether they be white collar or blue collar or anything in between). The house slaves are controlled by The Machine just as we, the proles, are. They are just exploited in a slightly different way.

[The Johnny]

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.

First of all, States are not "projections of the mind" they are real entities, look up the Parable of the Barstool. Also, making a psychological reductionism of a socio-historical process of why States exist and were created is simply that, a reductionism.

I was going to adress the rest of the post, but its way too scattered and it replicates the problem with the first paragraph, psychological reductionism to very complex phenomena.

[The Johnny]

I think the central point in the argumentation is the possibility of the "anarchist project", and if it indeed is, there are a bunch of threads that explore that already.

[Wolfgang Absolutus]

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.

First of all, States are not "projections of the mind" they are real entities, look up the Parable of the Barstool. Also, making a psychological reductionism of a socio-historical process of why States exist and were created is simply that, a reductionism.

I was going to adress the rest of the post, but its way too scattered and it replicates the problem with the first paragraph, psychological reductionism to very complex phenomena.

Sure a state can hurt you and in that sense it exists, but it can only hit you as hard and as fast as one of it's dogs(military officers) or pigs(police officers) can hit you. In this sense the state only has power because people listen and follow it's instructions. One could say Yahweh exists too since the crusades happened but that wouldn't really be true. In terms of the individual approach then if one gets rid of the mentality of subservience to the state then the state's power will be reduced. Then again most dogs and pigs are not that easily swayed as they are devout statists so more collective forms of resistence become necessary to not get your brains smashed out by the invisible hand of the market or  the one eyed monster of government.

[The Johnny]

One could say Yahweh exists too since the crusades happened but that wouldn't really be true.

Please, making such logical fallacies is just insincere, an "yahweh" is an "invisible entity" in the sense that it's an abstract; the State is a very real and tangible institution, with power and officials and the ability of enforcement.

Others might have heard me say this multiple times and might be sick and tired of it by now, but not you so ill repeat it: discourse =/= practice. I say this in the sense that even if you dont have a subservient mentality, and you still act subservient, the State's power remains the same.

Good luck with that "collective resistance", go and wake up the "sheep" from their "slumber".

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I think you might get more productive thinking if you look at The Machine as a personification of cultural inertia. States are real solid things that exist, the idea of The Machine is the stuff that keeps a state (or any group) steamrolling people over a cliff in spite of the fact that everyone insists that's not what they want.

[Doktor Howl]

Implying governments are an undesirable outcome.

Personally, I despise roads, bridges, and the rule of law.

BACK TO THE JUNGLE!  OOOOOK!

[Doktor Howl]

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.

Are you having some sort of episode?

I'm confused by what you mean by that.

I mean that you are using a lot of words, but your meaning is not particularly clear, and I'm uncertain of what to make of that.

I thought it was just me.

[Doktor Howl]

I find them to be undesirable if there are better alternatives for living.

Like, say, Somalia?  Or Liberia?