/lit/ - Literature

>>20061534
>what so im supposed to accept its true because i'm hiding it in the sub concious recesses of my mind? did any of you actually have this as a kid?

You had it as a kid and that's why you post worthless threads

>>20061537
I never had a fear of anything on my body being damaged by my father

>>20061546
im genuinely interested in the concept and i genuinely didn't have it. Is it like a literal physical anxiety about literally getting cut?

It's METAPHORICAL. Anxiety about losing a source of onanistic/mommy/non-productive pleasure that you must sacrifice to participate in society. That's what triangulation/castration is about.

>>20061534
Sure did.
Maybe if I still had my foreskin I would call my elderly father.

Freud (more like Fraud) was refuted by Nabokov (which most of you can't even pronounce ((no really)).

>>20061613
why does everyone say its literal then?

>>20061534
Freud's work is based on observing patterns. The reason why he calls it subconscious is because you are not aware of it, and yet to an outsider who is observing your behavior, castration anxiety would be a logical hypothisis to explain your behavior.

think about gravitational theory. we cannot observe gravity directly, but despite that, we can observe that the entire universe behaves as if gravity exists. therefore, gravitational theory is both usefull and true enough to be considered real.

I've never seen anyone criticize Freud who actually understands his work.

>>20061686
Anon recommended me a very interesting Erich Fromm book that "criticizes" some parts of his theory.

>>20061686
the problem is experiments can be set up to verify gravity but noone to this day has given a good experiment that uses castration anxiety to advance psychological knowledge or even to prove it exists

>>20061686
You can prove gravity but you can’t prove anything related to psychoanalysis. The subconscious mind is a scam.

>>20061634
Shhh meds.
The tranny kind.

I don't know what you guys are talking about but someone please answer this, I'm a girl and every night before I go to bed I imagine I'm a guy, usually famous, and try to seduce me (as myself) as the guy. So like Orson Wells for instance, I imagine from his perspective that I (as myself) am some starlet he's directing and try to hit on myself as him. I've been doing this every night for like a year. Does anyone know what this says about me? I don't have disphoria, I'm very feminine and misandrist, so what's going on here.

>>20061772
Freud says
Penis envy Electra I just want to do cocaine for G-d's sake!

Jung says that's your heroes journey (but verbosely with many inpenetrable tangents). Why do you think women love Harry Potter? Why do women watch porn? You are becoming aware that your sexuality is the becoming of attachment rather than the visual object pathway of the male perspective. You envision attracting a particular male and you can create this male with your womb. Your womb is hungry for this male and your eyes find him. Your mind conditions him.
You aren't the hero in your own story. Neither could you be. You are the holy grail. You are seeing the story as the holy grail would tell it.

Thats my interpetation and Im from the psychiatric business (shit show) myself but not proud of it.

>>20061772
>misandrist
There's your problem. Misandry and misogyny, being hate directed towards a gender, is sexual in nature, and comes from a lack of sex. Basically, have sex femcel.

>>20061788
https://youtu.be/BhPnxmw4xNA
Best book man talk succinctly on the subject in brief

>>20061705
the purpose of science is not to explain "why" something happens, but to explain "how" something happens. science doesn't claim that gravity is real, that's a subversion of science. what science does is observe that objects accelerate towards the ground with a certain force that can be measured, and behaves acording to certain principles, etc. therefore, you can hypothesize that there is a gravitational force pulling objects towards the ground, etc, etc.
gravity itself is not objectively true. but gravitational theory is true enough to have practical applications. scientific theories are constantly being updated and it could very well be that case that one day, we might find something in the universe which does not conform to our current understanding of gravity.
The point about Freud is that his theories are true enough to explain observable phenomena and it can help people to fix some of their problems. I'm not going to defend him too much because I agree more with Jung's ideas, but the basic principle is the same.
By observing someone's behavior, you can abstract an underlying pattern from it that could explain the behavior. becoming aware of destructive patterns of behavior can help people improve their lives. and again, I'd have to go off topic here because at this point I would argue the Jungian concept of shadow. but the principle is the same.
Freud is only correct to the extend that his theory explains observable phenomena. He is not correct beyond that point.

>>20061793
Become sex

>>20061788
Wow this is going to take me a second to read through, thanks in advance.
>>20061793
I don't hate men, I just think they're inferior, and it's not sxual

>>20061808
>I don't hate men, I just think they're inferior
Yikes. Have sex femcel.

>>20061817
No it's not like a feminist resentment or something, basically imagine the difference between dogs and cats, dogs are cute and affable and can even be really smart for a dog but cats are just superior. And a cat doesn't go around thinking "today I feel superior to dogs, fuck dogs!" she just intuitively knows she's better and moves on with life.

>>20061772
>>20061788
>>20061793
I'd like to repeat this point to make it very clear. Freud is only correct to the extend that his theory works and not a single step beyond that. it's very easy to come up with some random nonsense about how you're in need of dick, but if it doesn't actually solve your problem, then it's wrong. which is precisly the reason why I said that nobody who has criticized Freud actually understands him.

>>20061808
Believe it or not Im one of the worst offending trolls on this website but I do it for inflammatory kicks not sincere hatred of women. I read a lot of Otto Weininger but without Weininger's fatalism. The female condition is simply secondary to the male as are lakes to rivers. Ancient mysticism is the only sober voice in your corner, on your team, m'lady of Euphoric heckin respecterinos.
(But actual respect before the tits or gtfo mob arrives)

>>20061552
Then you don't have a father.
>inb4 you have an abusive father and are normalizing it
No, my father is a very nice man who has never hit me. But he's a full grown man, with all the virtues and vices that comes with. I recognize that he is a potential destructive force, especially since I first new him when I was very small. If you don't recognize the same thing about your father, then he's a beta bitchbaby and probably not even the true source of your genes.

>>20061825

>>20061832
What problem?

>>20061847
idk. do you have any problem?

>>20061835
You seem like a smart enough doggo (just kidding to be clear) that I can recommend Sexual Personae if you haven't read it, basically one of the ideas is that women and men express their excellence in different ways, men through the Apollonian which is what makes society and science and the arts, the point of all this being to escape the Chthonian mother (the Dyonisian), whereas we don't have that same Apollonian urge but are content to live within ourselves and find attunement to the divine feminine essentially. But civilization being Apollonian seems to prove men as superior, if you don't know that the Apollonian is only artifically superior to the Chthonian. I prefer being a literal avatar of the divine feminine to make numbers make bigger numbers real good, y'know?

>>20061836
My father threatened to punish me and did punish me all the time, physically, socially, and psychologically. Not once did the thought cross my mind that he would mutilate me in my sleep.

>>20061859
*to making numbers make bigger numbers

>>20061832
His chain of reasoning does help diagnose but makes problems worse. Buddha cures them. Psychoanalysis is the opposite of the Noble Eightfold Path towards selfless liberation of mental defilements and pain. Psychology and psychoanalysis is like self worship in that ever more and more description of the problem the attachment to these things becomes more detrimental. This cues the pills and pharmaceuticals. People are waiting for a break through. They should just fast and let it go. I hate to say there are no secular stream enterers besides Nikola Tesla who himself stopped believing in the self as he dependently originated matter and energy he sought to be a more noble selfless person free of hindrances. Tesla's The Problem of Increasing Human Energy has a Buddhist introduction and moral center. The West's greatest sages Tesla and Schopenhauer basically analogously invented their own private sangha life of renunciation for purpose. Freudians simply analyze their death drives and sex drives instead of using them like mortal missiles to target and cessation.

>>20061861
That has never occurred to me either but a general awareness of his power plus the sensitivity towards your genitals (which dad sometimes calls "gentles") doesn't leave you far away from that belief, and your subconscious can handle the rest.

>>20061859
this actually just blew my mind wtf

>>20061873
Tesla also says theres never been such thing as psychics.

>>20061864
>>20061808

If you're comfortable being with yourself you'll be comfortable performing any given task so long as you have some knowledge beforehand. Think of Artemisia Gentileschi, a great renaissance painter, woman too. This whole "women are like this, men are like that" talk just shows you think people can be forced inputs on reality and that get no bitches. We all have weird dreams btw, the other day I dreamt I fought a war with an axe and a shield, doesn't make me a Bronze age warrior. As a buddy once told me "Let the id prevail"

>>20061859
Gonna read that devil magic vagina book after all. My wife would like that. Maybe fanged noumena too.

>>20061873
That makes an awful lot of sense. When I read Freud for the first time, I just broke down crying because he was describing things that I had observed and wasn't able to deny, but at the same time it was like swallowing a huge blackpill. I was also 16 and depressed which probably had something to do with that. What helped me get snap out of it was Jung's work, which took at least some inspiration from Buddhism.
Freud seems to make problems worse because the way he describes things take control away from the person. It creates the mindset that people are victims of their circumstances, and there is nothing they can do to help themselves.
Jung, on the other hand, argued that people should confront and integrate their shadow.

>>20061944
>>20061788
Meant this for you too, dubs.

You guys seem young and think it says everything in books but trust me, books however wonderful they may be, are supposed to bring the adventure to you rather than be the adventure itself. (at least in my opinion) These descriptions of gender might fit a literary analysis of characters and could possibly be applied to a portion of humans' lives, but I'd say a person has to consent to be analyzed in one way or another, kinda' like hypnosis, for it to really make sense.

>>20061944
Baroque* not Renaissance my bad.

>>20061859
That's a nice way of saying women cannot conprehend the enormity of male loneliness and men cannot comprehend the enormity of female fear. Women are less active because they are literal pussies, cowed by their entirely warranted fear of physical inferiority. I'm not saying men are superior to women because of their position. Being a creature of unfathomable loneliness is just a different burden than being a creature immersed in fear. We've tried to engineer a society to alleviate female fear and "unlock" their latent potential. This is pure foolishness because fear IS femininity. Not the whole of femininity but an essential immutable element. We're basically asking women to throw away themselves for a meaningless point of pride. It's a shit deal and I'm saddened so many suffer from such unfair expectations.

Modern society tells women they have to be more than a woman, that being a woman is inferiority. Conversely it tells men they need to be less than a man, that being a man is wicked. Nobody is fucking happy when women are suffering existential dread groping at the fringes of the void finding only aging and death for their efforts while men are collapsing in on themselves becoming pale shades.

>>20061859
>rebranding sloth as divine femininity
Impressive

>>20062004
>what are cows
>what are boobs
Let me guess, coomin to tomboy abs?

>>20061987
>Modern
You guys think progress or even just a semblance of change isn't welcome? Think about it...If your reasoning that describes men as lonely and women as fearful were applied, it would follow that with emancipation every person could forget about taboos and do as they damn please with whoever...this is a utopian, though but it doesn't mean that the precursors to this movement were not aware of it. Cady-Stanton comes to mind as someone who pointed out how EVERYONE is lonely, not just men. Imagine that you're married off as a teenager to some old fart who makes you have kids while you still play with dolls. That is reality for many girls in many places today and the fact that the West and some nearby lands managed to get rid of, or control this is a sign that things can improve. You'd have to be foolish if you think that people cannot be better than the predetermined outlooks.

>>20061987
That's a really interesting post, I would argue that actually men are the ones who are afraid which is why I (and Paglia) describe Apollonian society as an escape. IIRC she ties this into Freud's castration anxiety which is relevant to the thread but I never understood alll that. At a *physical* level you're right that femininity is fearful, but psychically men are completely dominated by women and are motivated by the fear of darkness and the void (or re-absorption by the mother), whereas we feel essentially one with nature and have no reason to be afraid of ourselves. There's a reason that the scariest thing to the civilized world is a witch.

>>20062039
>>20061987
Are you talking to yourself?

>>20062004
You can see that it's true by how human men are literally the only thing in the Universe that works and strives to improve. You're the weird ones!

>>20062004
Based and architectpilled

There is nothing in "psychoanalysis" that isn't said more clearly and honestly [i.e. without the bourgeois rent-seeking pathologising gaze] in Schopenhauer. Freud is nothing but a pallid, blackpilling, nihilistic plagiariser of Schopenhauer's insights regarding the unconscious Will. Prove me wrong (you literally can't)

>>20061987
recently I've had this thought while trying to understand why men and women are different.
girls mature into women when they get their first period. it's a physical maturation that is forcefully imposed on them by nature and is perhaps even traumatic. women then become self aware of their own body, of pregnancy and their own weakness and vulnerability.
boys, on the other hand, don't experience any of this. reaching puberty makes boys horny, but that's about it. the childishness remains until they become much older and society abandons them. women have inherent value because they get pregnant. but men have no such inherent value. it is only when boys start feeling left behind and abandoned, that they suffer an existencial crisis which leads to a psychological maturation rather than a physical one. boys who do not experience this existencial crisis grow into Menchildren.

because of feminism, birth control and overprotective legislation, the physical maturation process that girls would naturally experience is gone. women have been stripped of their inherent worth and now have to compete on equal footing with men. this is the reason why there are female Menchildren now. this is why women experience the same existencial crises that used to be male exclusive.
but there is still, one important difference. the male myth of hero exists for thousands of years. tribes often have pasasge rituals at a specific age for boys to become men. women don't have that because it was never necessary. the feminist revolution only happened in the previous century. as a result of that, most women are even more lost than men. the closest equivalent of female hero that I'm aware of comes from japanese culture. for example, I vaguely remember reading somewhere that the wife of a samurai was expected to be at least strong enough to defend the house during her husbands absense. this would certainly explain the fetishization of japanese women and culture.

I'm still sorting these ideas out in my head, but what do you think?

>>20062022
Of course men feel fear and women feel loneliness. The amount is never, ever comparable though. Change is not necessarily good or bad. What is decidedly bad is misalignment with the divine. I'm not a prescriptivist nor an antiquity fetishist. I personally have an imbalanced favoritism towards chaos over order. I'm a field reporter. I can only report on the essence of the current and my perception is the imbalance I've described. By most metrics other than "big numbers become bigger numbers" the status of this plane is deteriorating year over year. Even the charade of numbers is showing cracks as inflation can no longer be suppressed through chicanery.

I propose merely a change in attitude, not behavior. Behavior follows. Believe it or not there is more to the apollonian than manifesting expansion. When it takes its inspiration from the cthonic then we start producing meaningful manifestations beyond mindless expansion.

I'm one such man. I've turned my back on the light of day since birth. To hell with all that dogshit. Wolfpack stories of the fleeting plunder of conquest, comraderie, and subjugation. A life of pride. My life has been a solitary stroll in the moonlight graced by the presence of cthonic forces.

Escape the cthonic? Wouldn't dream of such a thing. I'd rather die, my whole purpose is searching for cthonic beings. I'm constantly at war with myself to make a bare minimum daylight appearance effort to imbibe vitality. Inner expansion and self discovery not outer distraction. From my experiences I would never call into question the power these forces wield.

I did die for my foolish decision to walk the moonlit paths alone in their domain without a pack. I burned. Encountering them took everything from me, reducing my pitiful self to ashes and seeding the discovery what I had distanced myself from out of fear formed my former essence. I had not successfully evaded negative imagination through hiding instead I became the product of my fear. A pitiful creature not deserving of pity that desired death. My wish was gracefully granted.

I'm back at it again, wandering the dark forest trails with a new head on my shoulders. The same base drive but much sharper focus. My prey days are over.

>>20062209

>>20062050
No, it's just cthonic plane talk. I'm terminally attracted to witches and so here I am, back at it again, trying to survey their environment without losing my head this time.

My closest myth equivalence in my life story so far is Orpheus. But I'm not nearly as much of a whiner as he was. That's why I'm rewriting the tale with my particular adjustments eliminating that dreadful racket at the end.

Ok, I'll be honest, I did the grief song and dance too. You happy?

But what if my head found a body down there and kept its antics going? That's where I'm at now. It might even turn out comedic, who knows? Eurydice doesn't have shit on Persephone. You gotta get a taste of the territory before you recognize the right aim. Eurydice was just an episode not an end. Persephone is the one who "gets" me. We walked similar paths and dealt with the same usual group of suspects. I think the shared experience could be the foundation for a much more meaningful relationship than my daylight fixation on Eurydice. I'm taking my sweet time walking to her court though. Plenty of stuff to do down here and compose songs about.

>>20062311
there are definitely some similarities in there. but his conclusion seems to be that all women are sluts? lol. I'll try to read the book if I can find it.

>>20062209
I think it's a bit off the mark to assume women will ever engage with the Male existential crisis and find anything meaningful there. What you are describing is messing around with forces that sublimate gender identity entirely. The question looms if the path to this hemaphroditism is nearly as richly meaningful as the aligned manifestation of the two distinctive identities. I'm inclined to say it's not, but I'm admittedly out of my depth and do feel a vague sense it could be.

It also sounds like trans identity. Men becoming ideal women because they understand the needs of a man and women becoming ideal men because they understand the needs of a woman. Trans identity as it is today is so other gender negating afaik. That's a bad manifestation of what could potentially be the path to maximal expression of the archetypal man and woman. Imagine a transgirl who did not hate her maleness or masculinity but felt in such alignment with it that she understood it and wanted to devote herself to loving it. The problem we have now is a wholly understandable problem with obsessing over physical proof. We can't overcome that yet and so trans identity will be plagued by literal nuerosis for as long as the physical limitation remains. It will be mental illness until that breakthrough and then we will see what trans identity unshackled from nuerosis can manifest.

>>20061738
Freud never used the term subconscious damn. There's three things, the Unconscious (which is literally unconscious), the Preconscious and the Conscious. The Preconscious is shit you aren't thinking about but that you could think about, and the Conscious is shit you are thinking about, and the unconscious is shit you literally can't think about, someone else has to help bring it out for you.

>>20061686
>I've never seen anyone criticize Freud who actually understands his work.
yup

>>20061873
Let's get something straight: Freud was principally a man of the enlightenment, and a man of science. He was an Atheist and believed very strictly in empirical principles and finding universal human experiences, like dreams, like the trauma of birth.

The greatest difference between Freud and Buddhists, Yogis, and all the like is there acknowledgement and subsequent denial of the Other. Freud would say if a girl gives you a compliment its perfectly natural to feel warm inside and smile, but the Yogis would tell you to feel nothing, to treat "happiness and sadness equally". It's not an attainment of higher consciousness, its a fear of living in reality, of experiencing all the vicissitudes of life. It's the fear that death will lead to rebirth because they equate death to non-being, and their only experience of non-being is in the womb.

They would rather the Other didn't exist, that real life was a fucking illusion, that every hope, failure, triumph and tragedy was a like a breath of air. There is so much in life and you throw it all away if you desire something beyond it! Because you can't desire anything beyond life, all desires are desires in the world. And there's no escape from this world, no matter how terribly you want it!

I'm tired of spirituality and mysticism and the "Beyond", I see right through you fuckers.

>>20062134
Freud literally directly rejects schopenhauer in Beyond the Pleasure Principle. It's a qoute I can find for you or you can just pull up any translation and ctrl+f "Schopenhauer"

>>20063179
>but the Yogis would tell you to feel nothing, to treat "happiness and sadness equally".
You don't know what that means. If one is not attached, there is no fear whatsoever. Fear can only come from attachment - for instance, attachment to reality, or attachment to non-reality.

>>20063179
Freud was a jew. Ignoble defilement runs deep to his intentions. Therefore he cannot truly be a secular thinker himself. There is no such thing as neutral ground. I gave you plenty with mentioning Schopenhauer and Telsa who explain their thought without another shore of unreachable thatagatha mystic enigma. Their thought is rigorous but paved.
If I could take of my mystic garb I would but your golem would hunt me down for flying too close to the sun.

>>20063179
Buddhism takes these things directly in themselves and inverts their harm by meditating directly on suffering, emptiness, desire. The teaching is the salvation not a place or a promise or a belief. You are saved by equanimity. You are saved by yourself and it is a discovered theory that any way you save yourself proves the theory. The Buddha claims to have discovered this path and conditioned it to the teaching.
Buddhism is not like Christianity where you trade off your life for an ultimatum. It is about the here and now having a whole other living trajectory, purifying your senses. There would be no spiritual life if you could not change the way you perceive stimuli by changing yourself. The mystic leap of faith occurs at each stage of attainment and the next attainment is the great beyond that is hard to fathom and believe. Antiquity worsens this but Schopenhauer alleviates this for our modern Western ears.

But even easier is keto. Literally practically altering your faculty for hunger and appetite is the most concrete parallel to the Buddha nature project.

>>20063185
I admit that perhaps I have more to learn in the sphere of Indian philosophy, as I am a mere initiate and have only passed through the first stages relatively speaking. But I don't think attachment is something one has any conscious control over; in fact I'd say even that desire is something that manifests more deeply than so-called "pure consciousness", as in desire for the Other. Rejecting the Other is a delusion and a flight of fancy.

>>20063201
already a vegan, changing my diet immediately put me on a far more even keel.

>>20063205
>But I don't think attachment is something one has any conscious control over
And you have no right to impose your beliefs on others, especially when they have found otherwise themselves.
>so-called "pure consciousness"
Attachment to consciousness is attachment. Pure consciousness is not even a Buddhist assertion.
As for the "Other", Buddha never rejected it. However, believing or not believing in an Other is an attachment, by believing or not believing in it you have fallen into a wrong view and you condition yourself, just the same as believing in a Self. To think about it more analytically, if the Other really is truly "other", you will never know anything about it, to know something about it would have to no longer be "other", it would have to become present to you and thereby be with you, you would have to identify with it in a sense. And if you cannot know anything about it at all, then it is not even worth considering, because it cannot be considered. The idea about depriving yourself of things in this world is wrong, that is exactly why Buddhism is called the Middle Path, and not severe asceticism. Asceticism will lead you to "hell" if you are attached, just as easily as hedonism will if you are attached.
>in fact I'd say even that desire is something that manifests more deeply than so-called "pure consciousness"
This is exactly what is stated in the Buddhist doctrine of conditioned arising. Desire is the root of conditioned existence, consciousness is a manifestation (sankhara) of desire.

>>20063205
>>20063205
You are right to observe the vast imperceptible bounds that are beyond our conscious control in desire. However you are fatalistic from your skepticism. It is a good heuristic to ground yourself with blackpills but this has buried the greatest ethos that man can strive for: The dream of the wheel turning monarch is to take desire and recondition it from its deepset grooves. Guarding the sense doors is preventing attachment. Novelty has to face the inertia of everything past. I think of it like Tarzan grasping vines and letting go so he traverses the jungle in agile fashion. Discrete experience is painful when ruminated at the expense of the next discrete experience like grasping to vines that snap against the grasper beyond their range of motion grace period to let go. However the teaching goes further and further having given you enigmatic clues that had no fun western Tarzan tutorial. It repeats its blackpilling mantra dogma but reveals a deeper layer under my fancy and momentary adaptation still. When wil Tarzan grasp something that hurts to even reach for? How is he lost? Why does he do this? Deeper than virtue still after virtue requires heavy duty economists to sell me on renunciating amenably and seeing a continuum between me and the temples. But the Buddha is there far above his monks and their piety like a mountain in the distance. He has seen to it ineffably leaving behind riddles.

Pic unrelated I just like this duck being grasped.

>>20061534
Think of it in this manner:
Oh no! So many patients who have unknown causes behind their compulsive behaviors and their hysteria! Quick! Create a workable and superficially consistent theoretical system to explain it!
Another way to think of it:
Patients tend to respond a little better to someone who is a "figure of authority" and provides some structure behind their behaviors. Doesn't matter the structure. Freud could have made a theory of metaphysical farts instead, and it would still give the patient a framework to assess their behavior.
Yet another way:
Freud's own family history, strong Jewish affiliation and rank anti-gentilism is always ignored. Read on. Don't scream NAAZZII! and skip.
Historical context is very useful in understanding how such theories came about. All his theories stem from trying to explain and possibly treat his siblings' and his own hysteria at a young age. Jews are a very nomadic and tribalistic lot. It is only recently that they don't practice cultural and Talmudic rituals. Since their inception, they engaged in systematic and codified pedophilia, incest, rituals of masochism, etc. From outside, they look very mentally ill. But no one talks about this.
And so the same practices were common among all Jews throughout the globe, even in Freud's time. Here lies the obsession with sexual, incestuous and perverted motives, because in Freud's eyes, being raped as a child, going through severe humiliating physical abuse caused hysteria.
Freud is famous for inversion. So later, he inverted the cause for hysteria in young uns and claimed that the external abuse was merely a vehicle for ancient subconscious desires to raise their heads, leading to the concept known as "Oedipus complex".
A side note on Oedipus complex: Freud does the same inversion here too. It originally refers to luck, fate, ignorance and the inevitable in the face of the big picture. But Freud claims there is nothing like that involved here, that Oedipus is merely acting out his own subconscious imprint.
Back to the topic: You might ask: why does Freud invert his conception? Why does he say that the subconscious has all these libidnous desires, even in children, and they merely act them out when the appropriate situations arise? It is very interesting to note that this inversion coincides with 2 things: 1) Jewish cultural and sexual perversion being questioned by the general public 2) His own parents, uncles and aunts being accused of commiting such horrible acts.
So this inversion was a way to save face. To say brush Jewish perversion and his parent's crimes under the rug, and place the "blame" on the individuals themselves. He doesn't overtly state this, but functionally it achieves the same end.

Whew, I'm happy you read all this anon. Remember, just because he's a kike doesn't mean everything he says is bullshit. 99% percent of Freud is used for shame, deconstruction and controlling the narrative. The remaining 1% is still valuable.

>>20063223
I am not a lip reciter so I say despite listening I do not understand.
I trust you but I do not understand you and I must fashion a fine tooth comb approach to studying the teaching. It's like being told the answers to a test that I have not studied for.
This "but you believe in a self" yes like I would move and walk wrong from a lifetime conditioned. It's like I believe my arms and legs. I believe I can walk. This new condition takes very long to redirect towards non self awareness. The data that feeds my limbs is a phantom of references for wires that do not enter do not enervate what they claim to in each illusory synapse. Externalizing one's drives is the opposite of the internal Freudian digging. It requires indefinite captures of many distances and realms. It requires volumes of investigation and analysis. It calls to action. But if that action is put aside, I need a self like a shelf. Even as a contrivance and convenience. But I remember this is but a convention for something that has passed. Something that is no longer so and has no term or reference to capture in right speech anymore. I watch the flame. Watch it burn. I need my shadows.

>>20061534
You shouldnt read Freud as a psychologist but as an insight into the Jewish mind.

>>20061534
seems like what you're supposed to do is embrace having your nuts cut off.

>>20063265
Based

>>20063252
Very well said

When I was a teenager, my dad used to trim my pubic hair with a pair of short scissors. Whenever he would do it I was constantly in a state of panic that he would castrate me. A year ago my mom handed me a pair of scissors and I flinched. Sometimes I have nightmares I'm going to be castrated.

>>20063184
He does indeed, and as with every other point on which Freud deviated from Schopenhauer (or tried to disguise or conceal his plagiarism) the gap is filled in with his sickly cocaine-fuelled delusions.

>>20061772
You are a narcissist. That’s it.

>>20062517
They don’t need to engage with it themselves they need a husband to empathize with and engage with it through him so they get doses. If they were really seriously trying internalize those existential problems to be a man they would be suicidal.

>>20061772
It can be anything, neuroses and psychoses both present as unstable gender identification among other things. The fact that it's only a fantasy it's good, I guess.

>>20062134
The linked post is rubbish. Prove me wrong (you literally can't)

>>20061534
No, not that I remember. Maybe its because my parents were always unavailable when I was growing up. I never felt fear of them individually back then so much as fear of making their arguments worse by introducing myself at all.
These past couple years though I have been having these on-and-off daydreams about my father bursting in my room and trying to kill me, which might be some weird Freudian shit. He's extremely nice, but these fantasies have happened so many times that I have a full-scale plan in my head for how I would survive one of these attacks.
>>20063348
Anon why didn't you trim your own pubes

>>20063348
Did he at least make lawnmower noises while doing it?

>>20063223
>no right to impose my beliefs over others
this is why Buddhism is horseshit, it would rather acquiesce and eat shit; at least Karma Yoga doesn't make that mistake
>believing or not believing in an Other
Don't you get it? By even interacting with me you begin a discourse with the other--it is not something you "choose" to believe in, it is a fundamental element of consciousness

Go ahead, prove me wrong with no reply, that's what they teach you isn't it?

>>20061772
Sounds like the reverse of autogynephilia. This is the correct answer by the way, you're welcome.